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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses data provenance, a refresh cadence ('several times a day'), a hard result cap of 20, and the exact fields returned (price, acres, price per acre, place, water, value check, listed date, links). It omits auth/access constraints and any cross-source deduplication behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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: an identity/source/freshness statement followed by filters and return shape. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the first sentence is dense and the filter list slightly duplicates the schema.

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 an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers provenance, freshness, the result cap, and return fields, which is what an agent needs to call it and interpret results. It could say more about whether results span multiple sources without duplicates or how listings lacking acreage surface, but the schema already handles the latter.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter with units, defaults and edge cases. The description only restates the filter categories (region, price, acreage, water, value check, recency) and the 20-listing cap, adding little syntax or interpretation beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Land and acreages for sale'), the geographic scope ('one Canadian province'), and the upstream sources (Kijiji, Centris, Zillow). This is clearly distinguishable from the siblings: get_listing fetches one ad and list_regions supplies slugs, neither of which searches.

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 enumerates the available filters, which implies when the tool is useful, but it never states when to prefer it over get_listing or that a region slug should come from list_regions (that hint lives only in the schema). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given in the description itself.

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