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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context: the data source (Dubai Land Department open data), daily update cadence, CC BY 4.0 licensing, the source-page url included in responses, and the caveat that url can be null for projects without a page.

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?

Front-loaded with the core query behavior, then type, then return fields, then provenance. The return-field enumeration is slightly long but each item is useful; no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return shape (id format 'type:slug', title, type, name, slug, url, key figures). Combined with the provenance note, an agent has what it needs; only the limit parameter and pagination/truncation behavior are unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It fully specifies query semantics (case/accent-insensitive, all words must match, exact > prefix > contains ranking) and supplies the allowed values for type (project | community | developer | area), which the schema does not even encode as an enum. Only limit is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource domain: 'Search Dubai projects, communities, developers and areas by name.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_entity (lookup by id) and get_market_summary (aggregate stats), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 explains how the query matching works and what the type filter does, which implies the usage context, but it never says when to choose search over fetch/get_entity or when a name search is inappropriate. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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