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

Despite decent annotation coverage (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: returns are sanitized listing cards with handoff URLs and per-listing verified flags, and seller contact details are intentionally withheld. The out-of-scope response format is also disclosed. This goes well beyond the annotations and informs the agent of critical output limitations.

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 three sentences: purpose/scope, usage trigger, and behavioral notes. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence provides actionable information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 10 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: geographic constraint, when to invoke, output shape (sanitized cards, URLs, verified flag), a hard privacy boundary (no seller contact details), and fallback error handling for out-of-scope cities. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so the description is complete for selection and 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?

The input schema already describes all 10 parameters with 100% coverage, including enum values, defaults, and units. The description only ties usage to user mentions (locality, price band, BHK, transaction type), which is a selection hint rather than parameter-level detail. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds a small amount of contextual mapping.

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 tool's function: 'Search residential property listings in Coimbatore and Chennai, Tamil Nadu.' It specifies the resource (property listings), geographic scope, and includes an explicit usage trigger ('Use when the user names a locality, price band, BHK, or transaction type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on comparison, details, or financial calculations.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' conditions, which is strong guidance. It also explains the out-of-scope behavior ('Out-of-scope cities return supported=false + supportedCities + scopeMessage — surface the scopeMessage'). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' instructions, so it misses the top score.

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