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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds real value beyond that by describing the return payload – key specs, a photo, current starting price with sale price when running, and the plan page – which matters because no output schema exists. It omits pagination/result-cap behavior and any note that unset filters are optional.

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 front-loaded sentences: capability plus filter scope first, return payload second. Dense but every clause corresponds to actual filters. The long parenthetical enumerations are slightly hard to scan but earn their place by mapping to enum values and booleans.

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 17-parameter tool with no output schema and no required inputs, the definition covers the return shape and the major filter families, which is the right priority. Still missing are the default result count and 25-item cap, cost of broad queries, and any note on how numeric min/max pairs behave when omitted – details an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 only 47% schema description coverage across 17 parameters, the description does useful work by mapping buyer-facing concepts onto filters, including tying the "style (beach, cottage, Low Country, carriage house)" values to the feature enum and clarifying elevated/pilings as a foundation concept. However, it says nothing about text matching, the limit/default result count, maxPrice semantics, or story-count meaning, leaving several bare schema properties (stories, elevation flags, minBathrooms) to the agent's inference.

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 and resource ("Search Intertwine House Plans") and enumerates the real filter dimensions (bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, stories, width/depth, foundation type, style), which tells an agent precisely what domain this covers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings get_plan, plans_for_lot, or list_features, so the agent must infer which is the right entry point.

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?

The phrase "by the specs a buyer cares about" implies the intended use case – browsing candidates by attributes – and the list of filterable traits suggests when this is appropriate. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over plans_for_lot (lot-fit search) or get_plan (fetch one plan), and no statement about what to do with zero results.

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