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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the auth requirement and the 50-per-page cap with offset paging and a total. It stops short of describing output shape or edge-case behavior, so a 3 fits.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the auth requirement, then the capability, then the paging contract. No filler.

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 14-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: auth, filter dimensions, page size cap, total, and paging. It could say more about result shape or the 'full' flag's cost, but the essentials are present.

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 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories and the limit/paging mechanism, adding little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search the listings in your licensed feed') and enumerates the filterable dimensions. It is distinguishable from siblings like feed_changes and rent_summary, though it doesn't explicitly name how it differs from search_rentals_sample.

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?

Mentions the HousingFeed key requirement, which is a useful precondition. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_rentals_sample or how the two differ, leaving the main sibling-selection decision to inference.

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