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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results are public listing records carrying a mandatory energy rating, but it omits a material behavior: results include fictional EXAMPLE listings by default (include_examples defaults true), which an agent must know before presenting results as real homes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the differentiating scope constraint and then the return shape. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the description covers domain and geographic scope. But for an 11-parameter search with mostly undocumented parameters, the missing note about default inclusion of fictional example listings and about pagination behavior leaves real gaps 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 27% (3 of 11 params have descriptions), so the description carries the burden — yet it adds no param-level meaning. It only hints at country scope (ES/FR) and an energy rating field; filters like min_price/max_price, min_rooms, min_area_m2, property_type, limit/offset and the example-listing switch go unexplained.

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 (search) and resource (homes for sale by owner) plus a hard scope constraint: private owners only, in ES and FR. That scope makes it distinguishable from get_home (single record), get_facets (aggregations) and request_viewing (action), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'by owner, no agent, no commission' framing implies when this catalog applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_facets or get_home, and no guidance on paging through results or combining filters. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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