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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: results are "real, currently available" (fresh inventory) and every result carries a `url` the agent should hand to the user. But it omits auth requirements, pagination/limit behavior, and error/empty handling for a 9-parameter search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and when to use it. The "360° virtual tour" clause is mild marketing filler rather than actionable guidance, but overall the text is 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and middling schema coverage, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the key return field (`url`). It does not explain the unannotated parameters or result-volume/pagination limits, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 56%, with `type`, `limit`, and both price bounds undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by mapping natural-language terms ("flat", "house", "plot") onto the `type` enum and "in <place>" onto `location`, but adds nothing for limit or the price range parameters.

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 (Search) and resource (real, currently available homes) and enumerates the listing categories covered (rentals, furnished BnB, for sale, bank sales). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_property, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

"Use for any 'find me a flat / house / plot in <place>' question" gives a concrete triggering condition and even maps colloquial terms to the tool. No when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. get_property for a known listing) is provided.

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