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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a fixed page size of 20 and a default ordering of 'most checked facts first', which tells the agent what to expect without probing.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the companion-tool pointer placed after. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat terse relative to what it needs to convey.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, yet it only mentions page size and ordering — not the shape of a listing, whether total counts/pagination metadata come back, or how filters combine. Adequate for a search tool but with clear gaps.

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 50% and six parameters exist, so the description should compensate more than it does. It usefully delegates filter semantics to list_categories, but says nothing about page, sort, query, where, or category behavior beyond what the schema already carries.

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 ('Find listings of Rural Home Pros') and adds scope detail (20 per page, most checked facts first), but the resource name is domain jargon and the description never distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_listing or compare_listings. An agent gets the gist but not the boundaries.

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?

Points to list_categories as the way to discover filter names and values, which is useful routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement versus get_listing (single lookup) or compare_listings, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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