report_completeness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'From reads' suggests a read-only operation and the enumeration of missing-fields checks adds transparency, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, what the output looks like, or any error behavior. The behavior is partially disclosed but not fully.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful exclusion. Every phrase contributes: the missing-fields list clarifies scope, and 'Not a financial report' prevents misuse. There is no redundant or padding content.

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 simple one-parameter report tool, the description conveys the core function and specific checks performed. However, it omits the meaning of the optional listingId, how results are returned, and when to choose this over sibling reporting tools. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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 a single listingId parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions listingId or explains how it is used. The parameter is inferable from its name and context, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema property name already implies.

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 resource and action: reporting listing completeness by identifying missing photos, house rules, and amenities. It differentiates itself from financial reports, which helps distinguish it from report_occupancy and similar siblings, though it does not name a sibling directly.

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 'Not a financial report' sentence provides a negative usage signal, and the content implies it should be used when checking listing completeness. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_listing or report_occupancy, leaving usage context largely implied.

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