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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond that profile (no rate limits, no auth or error behavior) and instead spends its text enumerating the return payload. Adequate but not additive beyond structured data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the payload list; no filler. The payload enumeration is somewhat long, but each item (Golden Visa classification, 3D/360° links) is a genuine differentiator an agent could cite.

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, the description need not enumerate return fields, though it does so helpfully. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing: identifier format, language options via schema, and the single-listing scope are all covered.

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 100%, so both parameters (reference with its regex and example, language with its enum) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the reference example but adds nothing about the language parameter or default behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (retrieve one Greca House listing) and pins the identifier form with a concrete example (GH-108459). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_greece_properties or get_greece_market_research, which operate on sets or markets rather than a single listing.

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?

"Use this when the user asks about one specific ... listing by its reference ... usually after a search" gives an explicit trigger condition and sequencing relative to search. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (search_greece_properties) as the fallback for non-specific queries, which would make it a 5.

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