get_flats_by_resident_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic lookup operation and does not disclose whether it is read-only, any permission requirements, what happens with invalid resident IDs, or the structure of the returned data. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant content. It is appropriately brief, though 'look up' is a generic verb; still, it earns a solid score for efficiency.

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 has a simple signature but no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value, error behavior, or how resident IDs are matched to flats. Given the lack of supporting structured data, the description is insufficient for full understanding.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (comma-separated resident IDs and internal project ID), so the description adds little beyond restating the criteria. It does not introduce new parameter details or clarify relationships, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Look up' with resource 'flats' and specifies the criteria 'specific resident IDs within a project', which distinguishes it from siblings like list_flats or list_flats_by_occupancy. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_flats or get_flat_access. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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