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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the corpus is limited to Greca House listings, and the return payload is references, asking prices and links. The golden-visa guardrail (do not infer eligibility, applicant or permit approval) is a genuine behavioral constraint beyond the annotations, though it is repeated verbatim from the schema.

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 scoping sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing golden_visa paragraph duplicates, word for word, the description of the golden_visa_classified_only parameter and could have been a single reference to it. That repetition costs space without adding information the agent cannot already read in the schema.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover safety; what remains is coverage and semantics, which the description addresses for scope, region vocabulary and the golden-visa caveat. The gaps are the undocumented pagination/sort/language/filter parameters, which no prose compensates for.

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 only 47% across 15 parameters, and the description compensates only partially: 'budget, area, type or size' maps loosely to price, area, property_type and size parameters, and the parenthetical region list mirrors the region enum. Nothing is said about deal, sort, limit, offset, language, has_media or the bedroom bounds, so roughly half the surface remains undocumented outside the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (search) and resource (Greca House property listings in Greece) and immediately bounds the corpus ('Greca House's current public listings only, not every property in Greece'), which distinguishes it from the market-research, cost-estimate and detail siblings.

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?

It states when to use it ('user wants to find homes, land or commercial property for sale or rent ... within a budget, area, type or size') and gives explicit when-not exclusions (holiday rentals, hotels, travel bookings). It never routes to a sibling such as get_property_details or compare_budget_by_area, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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