Portfolio occupancy (CMS proxy)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotation: it discloses the proxy definition, inclusion/exclusion logic, the fact that low-confidence mappings are excluded by default, and that it provides coverage accounting. This transparently sets expectations for what the returned estimate represents and its limitations.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose ('Best-supported occupancy estimate'), then elaborates on methodology and coverage reasoning. No fluff, no repetition of schema details, and the logical flow from purpose to proxy definition to parameter behavior is clean.

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 an output schema (signal: true), so the description needn't explain return values. Given the complexity of a proxy with inclusion/exclusion logic, the description fully covers what the estimate is, how it is computed, who is included/excluded and why, and what share of the portfolio it covers. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical implication: low-confidence operators are excluded unless the flag is true, and it even provides a concrete example ('Agemo→Signature') that clarifies the kind of mapping involved. This goes beyond the schema's generic parameter description.

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 clear purpose: providing a defined, best-supported occupancy estimate for Omega's portfolio, with explicit methodology (bed-weighted proxy). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as 'best-supported' and explaining exactly what is and isn't covered, which differentiates it from portfolio_overview or operator_metrics without needing to open their schemas.

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 implies usage by calling itself the 'best-supported occupancy estimate,' suggesting this is the go-to tool for occupancy. However, it never explicitly mentions when to use another tool (e.g., operator_facilities, national_benchmarks) or provides exclusions. The only usage-related guidance is about the includeLowConfidence parameter, not tool selection context.

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