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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results include status and asking price, which is mild useful context. However, it does not disclose default filtering behavior (e.g., whether archived/draft statuses appear), ordering, or pagination limits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the tool's core purpose immediately and every word earns its place.

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 tool with six optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. An agent knows it lists properties but gets no guidance on filtering, result size limits, or what response shape to expect, making correct invocation and interpretation partially guesswork.

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 very low (17%), and the description does little to compensate. It mentions 'status' as an output field but does not clarify how q, city, kind, limit, status, or transactionType affect the query, even though those are the main ways to shape results.

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 clear verb-resource pairing: 'list' + 'property listings', with scope ('This agency's') and key fields ('status and asking price'). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_agents, list_contacts, and get_property, though it does not explicitly contrast with the generic 'search' tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it lists agency properties, but does not say when to prefer it over search, get_property, or other list_* siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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