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 needs no restating. The description adds real behavior beyond them: result ordering ('featured first, then newest by default'), the capped result count, and the presence of summary/url/contact_url. It stops short of describing cursor semantics or empty-result handling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the filtering/return behavior, then a worked example. The example is long but demonstrates multi-field mapping that would otherwise be guesswork, so it earns its place; the prose is otherwise tight.

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 20 optional parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema and rich annotations, the definition carries only what structured fields cannot: multilingual input tolerance, default ordering, and a realistic query example. Pagination via cursor and the limit ceiling are left to the schema, which is a minor residual gap rather than a blocker.

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%, so the schema alone documents all 20 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description does add one meaningful semantic point the schema lacks — that filter values accept English, Russian or Turkish spellings (e.g. 'Kyrenia' or 'Гирне') — but most of its example simply restates enum and field values already visible in the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search current property listings') plus a geographic scope ('Northern Cyprus'). It does not explicitly name its siblings get_listing or list_regions, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is still clear from the wording.

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?

It tells the agent that every filter is optional and gives a concrete intent-to-parameters mapping ('long-term rent of a 2+1 in Iskele up to £700' → deal, region, layout, price_max, price_period), which is genuine usage guidance. It does not say when to prefer a sibling such as get_listing for details or list_regions for area lookup.

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