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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without help from the description. The description adds useful content-shape context ('prices from', 'available units', 'move-in date'), which is genuinely behavioral. It does not mention ordering, result caps, or rate behavior, so it adds some value but not rich context.

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 trigger phrase, followed by the filter inventory — no filler. The parenthetical synonym list is long but earns its place by enabling multilingual query matching. Structure is clean and readable.

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 6-param, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers what results contain and which filters apply, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Missing niceties are pagination/limit behavior and the language default, though the latter is documented in the schema. Adequate for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, covering place, language and price_max; type, limit and rooms_min are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by naming place, rent/sale (type), rooms (rooms_min) and maximum price (price_max), covering the two otherwise-undocumented meaningful filters. limit and language defaults remain unexplained in the description, but language is handled by the schema and limit is trivial.

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+resource ('search' for 'new-build homes') and pins the domain precisely with developments that have available units, prices from, rooms and move-in date. The multilingual synonyms (Neubau, Erstbezug, Erstvermietung, neuf, nuova costruzione) sharpen the concept well. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not (e.g. search_listings or upcoming_construction), so an agent must infer the boundary from scope 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 opening 'Use this for new-build homes...' is an explicit when-to-use trigger with a concrete domain, which is more than implied usage. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance — the agent is not told to prefer search_listings for resale or upcoming_construction for unbuilt projects. Clear context, but no exclusions.

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