list_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses visibility filtering and scope semantics, but it does not mention return format, pagination, default behavior with no parameters, or error cases.

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 concise at two sentences and leads with the core purpose. The parenthetical 'Properties (Vermietung)' is slightly redundant but not a significant issue.

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?

For a simple list tool without output schema or annotations, it covers visibility, team scoping, and scope=all. However, missing default behavior, pagination, and return shape information prevents it from being fully self-contained.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining teamId as a space identifier and scope=all as listing every space, but it leaves the default behavior and the relationship between the two parameters ambiguous.

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 action (List) and the resource (Properties/Vermietung apartments), and scopes it to what the user can see. It also distinguishes this general list operation from sibling tools like get_unit by describing its collection-level behavior.

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 provides actionable usage context: pass teamId for a specific space, use scope=all to list every space. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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