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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The 'GET /api/homes' notation implicitly conveys a read-only, non-destructive listing, which is useful. However, it says nothing about pagination, result size, permissions/authentication, or the odd notification_message side-channel, leaving real behavioural gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the disambiguation. The 'Not the furniture shop' clause earns its place given the shared vocabulary, though the raw endpoint path is of marginal value to an agent.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does. But it omits any differentiation from list_neighbour_homes and leaves the unusual notification_message parameter unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents notification_message fully; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how that parameter relates to a listing call, which is arguably the most confusing part of the tool.

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 ('List neighbour homes you can visit') and even names the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It explicitly rules out the furniture-shop confusion, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-duplicate sibling list_neighbour_homes (or list_map_homes), which is the other plausible source of misselection.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule against one alternative: 'Not the furniture shop — use get_furniture_catalog for Buy mode items.' That is a genuine when/when-not statement. It stops short of covering the remaining ambiguous siblings, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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