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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine context by naming the single upstream feed (RE/MAX Lux) and the 'current' freshness expectation, reinforcing the closed-world hint. It says nothing about pagination behaviour or result caps, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and source front-loaded and the filter dimensions packed into a compact clause. No filler, though the trailing filter list borders on restating the schema.

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 12-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers source and filter scope but omits what a result looks like (list vs paginated envelope), default scope when listing_type is omitted, and result-count behaviour. Annotations cover safety, but the return-side gap leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 83%, above the threshold where the schema carries the load, so 3 is the baseline. The description does summarise the filter set (sale/rent, locality, price, bedrooms, MPRP threshold) matching listing_type, locality, min/max_price, bedrooms and mprp_eligible, but adds no syntax, unit or range detail beyond what the schema already documents and omits query, sort, page, property_type and special_designated_area.

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 resource (current property listings), names the data source (RE/MAX Lux feed), and enumerates the filterable dimensions, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_property or calculate_mprp_cost. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles single-listing retrieval, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated at a 5 level.

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 description implies a browsable search over listings but gives no when-to-use framing, no guidance on when to prefer get_property for a single listing, and no exclusions. An agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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