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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: offers happen on the page and require a Google sign-in, and ended listings are explicitly flagged rather than erroring. It does not discuss the return format or pagination, which keeps it from 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core content list and closes with two practical caveats (sign-in for offers, ended listings). It is slightly list-heavy but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates the page sections an agent will receive and notes the ended-listing state. For a one-parameter read-only lookup, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameter already documents that it accepts either the listing code or its full otthonesuzlet.hu URL. The description adds nothing about the code format or normalization. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics entirely.

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 makes clear this retrieves a single listing's public page and enumerates its contents (facts, prices, deadline, neighbourhood, floor plan, photos, offer flow). It is clearly distinct from a bulk search, though it never names ingatlan_search_listings as the alternative. A verb is only implicit ('One listing's public page'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for drilling into one listing once it has a code from a search. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to ingatlan_search_listings for discovery. Minimum viable, with a clear gap around routing.

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