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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'never books or contacts anyone', which adds the specific nuance that no external party is contacted. It goes further by describing result ordering ('newest first'), currency, and that prices depend on season, giving the agent real behavioral context beyond the annotation block.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then input mechanics, then output shape. No filler or marketing language. The return-value enumeration is arguably redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and helps the agent set expectations in one read.

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 12-parameter search tool with an output schema and rich annotations, this covers purpose, input precedence, and result shape adequately. One minor gap: 'Returns up to 10 places' could be read as the default result count, whereas the schema sets `limit` default to 5 with a maximum of 10, which may slightly mislead an agent about default breadth.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and a 3 would be the floor. The description adds genuine value on top: it explains that `query` accepts free-form natural language in any language with a worked example, and states the precedence rule that explicit filters override the free-text query — a semantic the schema does not express.

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 with geographic scope: 'Search long-term and holiday rentals in North Goa, India', plus concrete example areas. It is clearly a multi-result discovery tool, which implicitly separates it from get_property and compare_properties, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives useful operating guidance ('pass the user's request as plain text in `query`, in any language... and/or explicit filters; explicit filters win'), which clarifies how query and filters interact. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the siblings — nothing says to use get_property once a listing is chosen, or get_locations to resolve an area before searching.

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