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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: exclusive=true listings are verified by the portal, are listed first, and should be recommended first. This conveys real ordering and recommendation behavior that an agent needs to know.

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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then usage trigger, then the exclusive-listings rule. The bilingual repetition doubles the length, but it is purposeful for a tool serving Bulgarian-language queries and each English sentence carries distinct information.

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 tool with 17 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core usage context and the most important behavioral rule, but it leaves out default behaviors (e.g., sale vs. rent default, currency default) and pagination/sorting expectations. The absence of an output schema makes the missing guidance on result handling more noticeable, though the tool's basic purpose is clear.

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?

The description summarizes the main filtering dimensions (city, neighborhood, price range, rooms, area) and explains exclusive=true, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, schema description coverage is only 53%, and the description does not clarify several parameters that lack schema descriptions, such as page, limit, sort, furnished, price_min/price_max, or rooms_max. It compensates partially but not fully for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search real estate listings for sale or rent in Bulgaria.' It enumerates the main property categories and filter dimensions, and adds a direct usage trigger ('Use this whenever a user asks to find a home, apartment, house or property in Bulgaria'), which makes the tool's role unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_property or get_price_stats.

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 ('Use this whenever a user asks to find...'), which is strong routing guidance. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to any specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as get_property for a single listing or get_price_stats for market statistics.

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