Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context. It does: 'Free' is meaningful cost disclosure given credit-consuming siblings like buy_credits and get_credit_balance, and it sketches the returned fields. It says nothing about rate limits or match breadth, but the bar is lower with full annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the cost qualifier, then purpose, then the routing handoff. No filler and nothing buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the tool is simple with only two parameters. However, the undocumented `includeManagers` flag and the unstated name-matching behavior are real gaps an agent cannot resolve from any structured field.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. It never explains how `name` is matched (partial vs exact, despite the 2-80 length constraints) and never mentions `includeManagers` at all, leaving a whole parameter's semantics undefined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (finds) and resource (people who own or control NYC buildings) with the matching dimension (by name, directly or through companies) made explicit. This clearly separates it from property-oriented siblings like find_nyc_property and get_nyc_property.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the concrete follow-up tool and the condition that selects it: 'Use get_nyc_owner_portfolio with the key to list their buildings.' That is a clear next-step route, but there is no statement of when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to unlock_nyc_owner_contacts, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.