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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds valuable context beyond them — it warns that matches are the portal's own national aggregation and 'may be incomplete,' and instructs the agent to show URLs unchanged. Only return format/ordering details are missing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the what, then the precondition, then the critical data caveat. Every sentence carries actionable information with 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values; combined with annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing runtime context (precondition, data fidelity, incompleteness).

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%, including the 'since' semantics and the intentCode origin ('returned by intent_publish_intent'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond baseline.

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: 'Returns the listings the portal found for the intent.' An agent can distinguish this from the sibling workflow steps (publish/get/withdraw) because the object is explicitly the delivered matches, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Provides a clear precondition: 'Works once the user has confirmed on the portal's page,' which tells the agent when the call is valid. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the sequencing constraint is a strong usage cue.

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