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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the return shape (listing_url, developer, inquiry_url) and the 'live' scoping constraint, but says nothing about result counts, ordering or pagination behaviour.

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 with zero waste: the scope and filters come first, the return fields second. Nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim except the filter names, which serve as a quick summary.

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 four-parameter, all-optional search tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what comes back. The remaining omission is volume behaviour (limits, paging, ordering), which is minor for a simple search endpoint.

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 100% with all four filter parameters documented, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates the same four dimensions (city, developer, status, keyword) without adding matching semantics, defaults or multi-filter combination behaviour.

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?

The description names a specific resource ('Live new-build projects Semerenko Group markets') and the filtering axes, so an agent can tell it apart from a generic property search. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (e.g. sem.search_properties or sem.list_developers), leaving that contrast 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?

It conveys usage mechanics ('filtered by city, developer, status or keyword') and scopes to live projects only, which implies when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to the alternative tools an agent should prefer for other queries.

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