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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the default call returns a lightweight groups[] index rather than the full catalog, scoped calls return full criteria[] detail, every success includes related_tools[], suggestion-backed criteria carry suggestion_field, and 'Never bills.' These are genuine behavioral disclosures.

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?

The purpose and the 'call before search_properties' directive are front-loaded, and the dense sentences each add usable detail. It is on the long side and could be tightened, but almost every clause earns its place rather than padding.

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 3-param discovery tool with a 0%-coverage schema, the description fully specifies parameter behavior, call cadence, default vs scoped output shape, and the hand-off to search_properties/get_suggestions. Despite an output schema existing, it even outlines the return shape, leaving no material gap for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and does: query is one literal substring across titles/descriptions/enumerations/usage guidance and explicitly NOT a space-separated multi-keyword search; groups is an array of names or '-'-prefixed exclusions and 'never a bare string'; criteria_ids are exact catalog ids. It also notes params compose in a single call.

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+resource (discover property search criteria ids, types, and example values) and names the exact downstream tool it precedes (search_properties). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_suggestions, get_fields, and search_properties.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (call at least once before the first search_properties), when-not (do not repeat discovery for criteria already established), how-many (one scoped call for the filters currently requested), and names the alternative path (county names require get_suggestions). Nothing 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.