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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety traits. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the content scope (guides only, not properties) and that using 'search' merges both kinds, which is useful beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and alternative usage. Every word earns its place; it is concise and immediately actionable.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers use cases, distinctions, and topical scope. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning language handling, but that is already covered in the schema. Overall, it is well-rounded for the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 40%, so the description must compensate. It does so by enumerating query topics (buying, taxation, regulations, etc.) and geographic scope (Panama/Dominican Republic), giving meaning to the 'query' and 'country' parameters. It doesn't elaborate on limit/offset, but those are self-evident, and the schema provides defaults.

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 explicitly states the tool searches for public real estate guides on specific topics in Panama or the Dominican Republic. It uses a clear verb+resource combination and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search' by clarifying that properties are excluded unless requested together.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user asks only for EPK public guidance...' and an alternative: 'If the same request also asks for properties, use search instead'. This clearly delineates the boundary between search_guides and search.

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