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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are 'currently priced BELOW comparable homes' and ordered 'newest-best first.' It does not define 'comparable' precisely, but it is transparent enough for the annotations already provided.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and signal definition. It contains no redundant or wasted phrasing.

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 read-only listing tool with full parameter coverage and an output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. Minor ambiguity remains around how 'comparable homes' and 'newest-best' are computed, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description restates that the input is a metro or city name but adds no additional constraints, examples, or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('homes') with a clear qualifying criterion: priced below comparable homes. It also scopes results to a metro and states a default ordering, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_homes tool.

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 purpose implies when to use it: finding below-market or good-value homes in a metro. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_homes or when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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