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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one behavioral fact the annotations cannot convey and that no output schema exists to convey: the result is a set of ids intended for `fetch`, which shapes how the agent must chain calls.

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 tight sentences: scope first, output contract second. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most important operational fact (returns ids for fetch) is not buried.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so minimally but sufficiently by stating it returns ids for `fetch`. Ranking behavior, result count/pagination beyond `limit`, and behavior on empty results are unstated, which is a minor gap for a search tool.

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% – both `query` (with examples and length bounds) and `limit` (range and default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or semantics beyond enumerating content types, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (full-text search) and enumerates the corpus it covers, so the agent knows this is a broad, cross-content search rather than a single-resource lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_properties, and explicitly listing 'property listings' in its scope blurs that boundary.

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 closing clause 'Returns ids for `fetch`' implies the intended workflow (search, then fetch by id), which is real usage guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over search_properties or list_content, nor any exclusions, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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