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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: results are compact listings with dorit.bot links, sorted newest first by default, and the response reports what place names resolved to — the last point is important because it warns the agent that name resolution may not match intent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by a return-value note and a sibling routing tip. Dense but every clause carries actionable information for a 21-parameter tool.

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 21-parameter tool with nested feature objects and no output schema, the description covers scope, filter families, default sort, and result shape adequately. It omits pagination/plan page-size behavior and the rent-vs-sale default and city-coverage caveat that live only in the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only 52%, so the description carries extra weight. It enumerates the filter dimensions (price, rooms, size, floor, move-in month, property type, roommates, features) and thereby names roughly every under-documented numeric/enum parameter group that the schema leaves bare, such as min/max price and sqm. It still doesn't explain units or rent-vs-sale value semantics, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search live apartment listings for rent or sale) and scopes it to Israeli cities, localities and regional groups. It also names the sibling relationship explicitly, pointing to get_listing for single-listing detail, so an agent can separate it from get_listing and find_neighborhoods_near without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes single-listing lookups to get_listing, and the filter enumeration plus 'narrowed to neighborhoods or named areas' tells the agent when this broad search is the right entry point. It lacks an explicit 'don't use this when...' exclusion or guidance on combining with estimate_price/neighborhood_context, so it falls short of a 5.

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