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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 72-hour window, ranking against DLD fair value, and critically that nothing is sent until the buyer confirms via the returned link. That two-step 'prepare, don't submit' flow is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 action and followed by the outcome, with no filler. Every clause earns its place by conveying mechanism, ranking basis, and the confirmation gate.

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 7-param tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value (a confirmation link) and the send-on-confirm behavior, which is the key thing an agent needs. It falls short only on parameter-level detail and explicit tool-selection guidance.

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?

With 7 parameters and only 57% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. The three enum params (timeline, financing, property_type) have no schema descriptions and get no explanation here, leaving their semantics undocumented.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Prepares a Brief Battle request') and immediately explains the mechanism: brokers compete 72 hours with real units, ranked against DLD fair value. This clearly distinguishes it from the analytical siblings (check_price, get_comparables, estimate_rent), which only report data rather than initiating a broker competition.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanism (a buyer who wants brokers to compete) but the description never states when to choose this over the sibling tools or any prerequisites (e.g. buyer must be ready to act, area restrictions). No exclusions or named alternatives, so it lands at implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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