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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds real value beyond annotations: it declares the output is a list of ids intended for `fetch`, and shows the accepted free-text syntax. It does not disclose result limits, pagination, language support, or what 'current' excludes (e.g. sold/archived listings).

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, front-loaded with capability, then example, then return contract. The '[Premium]' tag and backticked `fetch` reference are compact and high-signal; no sentence is wasted.

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 read tool with annotations and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. Gaps remain around result volume and the overlap with `search_listings`, which matter for choosing and chaining correctly.

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 0% for the single `query` parameter, so the description must carry the semantic load. The example '2 rooms Arabkir under 120000' usefully reveals that the free-text string can combine room count, district, and price bound, but no other constraints (currency, format, length) are documented.

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 — free-text search over current Yerevan listings — and includes a concrete example query. It also names the follow-up tool (`fetch`), so the agent can see where its output goes. It loses a point because the sibling `search_listings` appears to do the same thing and is never distinguished.

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 example query and the 'Returns ids for `fetch`' note imply the intended workflow (natural-language query, then hydrate via fetch). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over `search_listings` or the structured `get_listing` path.

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