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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not convey: this is a transparent intermediate step, and the response contains both a filters payload and optional bounds that encode the 'near <place>' intent. It stops short of noting ambiguity/fallback behavior, so not a 5.

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 zero filler, and the workflow is ordered the way the agent must execute it (interpret, then forward). No redundancy with the title or annotations.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (filters plus optional bounds). It leaves open how ambiguous or unparseable queries behave, which is the one thing an agent might need before relying on it, but otherwise it is complete for a one-parameter tool.

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% and the single 'prompt' parameter is already documented with a concrete example. The description only restates that the input is the user's raw query, adding no format, length, or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a precise verb+resource+output: 'Translate a natural-language property-search sentence into a structured filter payload compatible with search_listings.' It explicitly names the sibling it feeds into, cleanly distinguishing it from search_listings itself and from listing CRUD tools.

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 prescribes an explicit workflow: pass the user's raw query here, forward the returned filters and bounds to search_listings. The condition selecting this tool over search_listings (natural-language input vs. already-structured filters) is implied clearly by 'pass the user's raw query here' and the compatibility note.

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