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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the return format ('id/title/url for the fetch tool') and the purpose of this fixed form (connector contract), providing context beyond the annotations. It does not cover all possible behaviors but is adequate for a simple search tool.

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 four sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, return format, relationship to sibling, and when to use. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear output schema and helpful annotations, the description is complete. It explains the free-text nature, return structure, relationship to the alternative tool, and the contract context. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with the query parameter described as 'Free-text property search query.' The description reinforces the semantic by emphasizing 'free-text query' and contrasting it with 'structured filters,' which adds clarity about the intended input style beyond the schema's terse description.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search live Northern Cyprus (KKTC/TRNC) property listings on Evlek with a free-text query.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (property listings), and geographic scope. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool search_listings by noting it is a fixed form for the ChatGPT/OpenAI connector contract.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when: the caller only has a free-text query. Don't use for: structured filters — use search_listings.' This clearly states when to use this tool, when not to use it, and names the alternative (search_listings), making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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