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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are newest-first by default, 'limit' caps returned rows while 'totalMatched' reports the full match count, and the output is strictly advertised asking-price and listing facts. Nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence identifies exactly what the tool does, and the remaining sentences efficiently add high-value behavioral and boundary information without repetition or filler.

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 search tool with an 8-parameter schema and an output schema, the description completes the most important missing context: default sort order, limit behavior, total-match semantics, and the result boundary. It does not enumerate every filter, but those are already fully described in the input schema, so no critical decision-making information 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for the behavioral parameters that the schema does not fully convey: 'limit caps returned rows and totalMatched reports the full match count.' It also clarifies the default sorting behavior relevant to the sortBy parameter. Other parameters are already adequately described by the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search live active sale and long-term-rent listings on Evlek') and immediately separates itself from sibling tools by declaring that it returns only asking-price and listing facts, not valuation, forecast, ranking, or recommendation. An agent can tell exactly what function this tool serves without reading the schema.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to search live, active, sale and long-term-rent listings. It also makes explicit exclusions, such as not being suitable for valuation or forecasting. However, it does not name the alternative sibling tools directly, leaving the agent to infer that a different tool is needed for those other purposes.

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