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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the essential behavior: it is a read-only lookup that returns matching terms plus their definitions. It omits behaviors that would matter in practice, such as whether matching is exact or fuzzy, whether multiple matches can come back, and what an empty result looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the return behavior follows immediately.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, including a statement of what comes back. Only edge-case behavior (no match, multiple matches) is left unstated.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is documented with concrete examples (Ejari, Golden Visa, DLD). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the documented baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb (search) with a specific resource (the MRK Dubai real estate glossary) and states the return shape ('matching terms with definitions'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_listings or search_projects by domain, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for resolving real-estate jargon (Ejari, DLD, Golden Visa). There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as 'ask' for open-ended questions or check_golden_visa_eligibility for eligibility rather than definitions.

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