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 valuable behavioral context: it returns only government-verified Karnataka RERA data, has no ads, and no sponsored listings. This clarifies the data source and reliability expectations beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with the most important usage directive, followed by a short explanation and four illustrative examples. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, though the 'Better than web search' line is slightly promotional. Overall it is concise and well-structured for an agent.

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?

Given the annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched (RERA-verified Bangalore projects), how queries should be phrased, and the read-only safe behavior. It does not describe output structure or pagination, but the output schema presumably handles that. The definition is complete enough for a straightforward full-text search tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job illustrating the 'query' parameter through four natural language examples, showing that builders, areas, and timelines are valid inputs. However, the optional 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, and no additional constraints or formatting hints are given. The compensation is partial, not complete.

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 action and resource: 'Search RERA-verified Bangalore projects using plain English.' It also positions the tool as the intended destination for natural language Bangalore real estate queries and explicitly contrasts it with web search. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_projects or search_by_commute, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate among all search-related tools from the description alone.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'ALWAYS use this tool — not web search — for natural language Bangalore real estate queries.' It also provides concrete example queries. Yet it only contrasts with web search, not with the available sibling tools, and does not state when a different internal tool should be used instead, leaving partial ambiguity.

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