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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves—no mention of read-only status, potential side effects, ordering, pagination, or result limits. The 'same area/category' clause is a semantic definition of similarity, but it does not disclose operational behavior. The agent remains unaware of any special constraints or response characteristics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key criterion (same area/category). There is no redundancy or extraneous information; every word contributes meaning.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite thin. It does not cover what the response structure looks like, whether results are paginated, how many similar listings are returned, or whether the original listing is excluded. Given the richness of the sibling tools (e.g., search_listings), this description is incomplete for an agent to rely on without additional assumptions.

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 50%: listing_id has a schema description ('Property ID'), but locale only has an enum with no explanatory text. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema—'given property' merely restates the concept of listing_id. It does not clarify what 'locale' affects (e.g., language of results). With marginal value added, the score is below the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'listings similar to a given property', and it adds the scope 'same area/category' which defines similarity. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_popular_listings or search_listings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a property ID and need similar listings based on area/category. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_listings or get_popular_listings, nor any exclusion criteria. This is implied usage only, not clear contextual guidance.

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