ops_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers exceptionally: read-only guarantee, honest VARIANCE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED blocked status instead of fabricated variance, missing-budget treated as a blocker never zero, structural refusal of wildcard/aggregate asset ids, and the rationale for declaring core arguments optional so refusals surface as payloads rather than crashes. This is unusually rich and honest behavioral disclosure.

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?

Roughly a hundred words with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and behavioral details following in logical order. Every sentence earns its place — the parenthetical about optional arguments is the only mildly tangential element. Dense but well organized.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior richly but leaves two gaps: it does not describe the return structure/format of the review payload, and it does not document individual parameter semantics. The refusal and blocker behaviors are well covered, but the missing pieces keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It only partially does: it implies asset_id rejects wildcard/aggregate values, and variance_oracle_callable gates the bound-variance behavior. But it never individually explains period, db_path, as_of_date, materiality, or how they map to the review behavior. With zero schema descriptions, this is a genuine gap.

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 a specific verb and resource — a read-only review of one property and one period — and immediately scopes the content: occupancy, typed exceptions, and oracle-bound variance only. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are dominated by components listing, underwriting, and bid evaluation, none of which overlap with operational occupancy/variance review.

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 establishes clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs occupancy change, feed freshness, or typed material exceptions for a single property over a single period. The repeated 'only' qualifiers set explicit boundaries on scope. However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, which keeps it a step below a 5.

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