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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: multilingual filter acceptance (English/Russian/Turkish), default ordering (featured first, then newest), the cap of `limit` results, and the fields each result carries.

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 front-loaded sentences: scope, cross-cutting filter behavior, then return shape and a worked example. No sentence is redundant and the most load-bearing facts come first.

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 14-parameter, all-optional search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining non-structured context: language flexibility, default ranking, and result cardinality. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so a 3 is the baseline. The description goes beyond it by explaining that filters accept spellings across three languages (region 'Kyrenia' or 'Гирне') and by demonstrating a multi-parameter combination, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Search current property listings in Northern Cyprus') plus scope details like sorting order and result contents. It is unmistakably distinct from get_listing (single record) and list_regions (region dictionary) without needing to name them.

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?

Tells the agent that all filters are optional and supplies a concrete worked query mapping ('long-term rent of a 2+1 in Iskele up to £700') that shows how to compose parameters. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or routing to siblings like list_regions for valid sub_region values, though the schema hints at that.

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