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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra value comes from explaining the net rental yield formula and the concrete attributes returned (token price, monthly rent, occupancy). This adds operational context beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is tight: two sentences, with the core purpose and the most important computed metric front-loaded, followed by direct usage guidance. Every sentence adds information and none repeats the schema.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, use case, metric definition, and result content. It does not need to restate return formatting or pagination because those are already present in the structured definitions.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the meaning of yield by giving the formula, but it does not need to add per-parameter detail; this is the appropriate baseline.

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?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb-resource pair: drilling into the RealT portfolio to inspect individual tokenized rental properties. It also distinguishes itself by framing the object as the properties behind the REALT entry and naming the specific metrics returned, so an agent can separate it from sibling search tools.

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?

The description gives explicit use guidance: use this when someone asks which specific tokenized property to buy, or when examining the yield/price spread within an issuer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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