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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, and an output schema exists, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value by disclosing provenance and a coverage limitation — the tours are agent-filmed TikTok content 'which the big listing portals do not carry' — implying sparse, non-exhaustive results. It stops short of stating result ordering, freshness, or what happens when no matches exist.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the distinguishing scope front-loaded before the optional filter. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. A note on what an empty result means (many metros likely have no TikTok tours) would close the remaining gap.

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%, so both parameters (limit with its 1-25 range and default, metro/city/state) are already fully documented. The description restates the metro filter without adding syntax or matching behavior beyond the schema's example, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('for-sale homes that have a real agent-filmed video walkthrough'), which is a genuinely different result set from search_homes. It doesn't name the sibling it supersedes, but the scope qualifier alone lets an agent tell them apart.

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?

'Optionally filter to a metro or state' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no pointer to search_homes for the general case or to below_market_deals for deal filtering. The agent must infer selection from the niche scope.

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