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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds what annotations cannot — that results are real for-sale listings sourced from Enzo's with price, style, and an outbound link to the original listing. It does not state result cap, ranking, or pagination behavior, though the schema limit and the output schema partially cover that ground.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the return payload and then the examples. Slight redundancy exists between the description's 'tudor homes under $1M in Pasadena' example and the identical example in the schema, which is the only wasted space.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers capability, query expressiveness, expected input shape, and return payload. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends semantics by spelling out the facets a free-text query can carry (architectural style, features, budget, beds/baths, metro or neighborhood) — far richer than the schema's single example string. It also implicitly frames limit as results-per-query rather than a filter.

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+resource ('Search real for-sale homes on Enzo's') and enumerates exactly which facets are searchable — style, features, budget, beds/baths, location. It stops short of naming a sibling, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it should pick this over below_market_deals or get_home.

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?

Two concrete example queries ('spanish revival homes with a pool under $1.5M in Los Angeles', 'mid-century modern in Palm Springs') clearly establish the invocation context as broad exploratory discovery. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are given, so the agent must infer that get_home handles single-property lookups.

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