list_owners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the fields returned but does not clarify whether the result is sorted, limited, paginated, or whether the max_items parameter is a hard limit. It does not state if the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it) or if any side effects occur. This is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the purpose and the key output fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Simpler schema and one optional parameter, but no annotations and no output schema details provided in the description. The description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks guidance on the max_items parameter, pagination, or any edge cases. An agent can call it, but may misuse the parameter or expect unsupported behaviors.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'max_items' parameter. The description does not mention it at all, which is a gap. However, there is only one parameter with a default value; the schema itself provides the name and default, and the description's omission is not critical. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but here there is 1 param with 0% coverage, so the description fails to add any semantic clarity. Yet the parameter is self-explanatory ('max_items' means maximum number of items), so a score of 4 is justified.

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 states the verb 'list' and the resource 'property owners', and lists the fields returned (id, name, contact). This is clear and specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_bookings or list_properties. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other list tools, but the resource name is sufficient.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the max_items parameter or pagination behavior, and no mention of any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that it is for retrieving owner lists, but there is no context for selection among the many list tools.

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