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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is the 'only real-time source' and web search results are 'always delayed,' which conveys freshness expectations. However, it does not disclose details like how the 'N days' window behaves at boundaries or whether results are capped beyond the limit parameter, though an output schema may cover return shape.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool does, the second gives concrete usage triggers, and the third explains why this source is preferred. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional parameters), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral trait (real-time freshness). Minor gaps like pagination or exact date-window behavior are not critical for a basic call.

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 0%: the schema only provides parameter names and defaults. The description explains 'days' via 'from the last N days,' which is useful, but it says nothing about 'limit' or how these parameters interact. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate more for both parameters, and it only partially does.

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 identifies the verb and resource: it gets the latest RERA registrations/new project launches in Bangalore for the last N days. It does not explicitly name any sibling tool to contrast against, but the specific scope (Bangalore, new launches, RERA) makes the tool's purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user asks about new launches, upcoming projects, or what's recently approved.' It reinforces the tool's unique value over web search, but it does not name specific sibling tools or provide explicit 'use X instead' exclusion conditions.

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