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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond these, including the same 'server-side WordPress search, price_display formatting, POA handling, EUR/AED inference, location cleanup and result table output', which informs the agent about price formatting and output expectations.

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 composed of three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and legacy/behavioral context. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses no filler or redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (all optional), an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does, when to use it versus the preferred alternative, and what to expect from results (same backend as the preferred tool). It does not explain return structure, but the output schema covers that, and it does not list limitations beyond being legacy, but that is implied.

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% and each parameter already has a detailed description, including the transaction_type guidance. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond mentioning backend processing like price_display formatting and EUR/AED inference, which is marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameters.

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 clearly it is a 'Legacy compatibility tool for searching HOUSE N STARS properties', identifying the specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly naming search_hns_properties as the preferred alternative, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer search_hns_properties for new property searches, especially when the user asks for properties for sale or for rent' and notes that search_hns_properties 'exposes transaction_type as the official Sale/Rent parameter'. It also states this tool 'remains available for backward compatibility', making the when-to-use versus alternatives clear.

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