get_squatter_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only analysis tool or has side effects, what permissions might be required, whether it makes external API calls, what the output format might be, or any error conditions. The phrase 'analysis' suggests computation but doesn't specify behavior.

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 extremely concise - just three words - but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's not verbose or repetitive, it fails to provide necessary information that would help an agent understand and use the tool effectively.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for its parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by 'squatter risk analysis' and the complete lack of structured documentation, this description fails to provide necessary context.

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 0% description coverage for its single required 'state' parameter, and the tool description provides absolutely no information about what the parameter represents, what format it expects (state name, abbreviation, code), what values are valid, or how it influences the analysis. The description doesn't mention parameters at all.

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 '50-state tenancy analysis' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get_squatter_risk' without specifying what action is performed. It mentions 'tenancy analysis' but doesn't clarify whether this assesses, calculates, evaluates, or reports on squatter risk. The purpose is unclear beyond the general domain.

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 the five sibling tools (check_availability, check_guest_risk_score, create_booking, detect_extortion_pattern, search_properties). There's no indication of what problem this tool solves, what context it's appropriate for, or what alternatives exist for related tasks.

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