get_readiness_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing safety. The description adds transparency by listing the evaluated data points (temperature, leak detection, door lock, humidity, critical alerts, baseline photos), which explains what the score is based on. No contradiction and no hidden side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place by adding essential context.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, read-only, no output schema) and the description covers its purpose, inputs, and evaluation criteria. It could mention the response format or data freshness, but given the simplicity and strong annotations, it's sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single `listingId` parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool calculates a 0-100 Physical Readiness Score, a specific verb+resource+output. It also provides the operational context ('before guest check-in') and lists evaluation factors, making it distinct from generic property health 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 specifies when to use it ('before guest check-in'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't earn a 5, but the use case is well-defined.

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