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 profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by stating the tool queries live data and by enumerating the returned record fields (code, url, title, address, asking prices, deadline, summary) plus catalogue_url; it stops short of describing pagination costs or result-total behavior.

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: the first front-loads what is searched and where, the second lists the return payload. No filler, no repetition of schema details.

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 10-parameter search with a nested object and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial missing piece by describing the return shape and the catalogue_url. What is absent is routing guidance relative to ingatlan_get_listing and any note on paging through results, though page/page_size are documented in the schema.

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 90%, so the schema carries nearly all parameter meaning, including the elaborate 'near' object and the 'text' matching rules. The description only reinforces deal type ('for sale or rent') and adds the catalogue_url return, which is baseline-level added value.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search the live listings of otthon & üzlet'), names the site, and scopes it to Hungarian homes and shops for sale or rent with sealed offers. It clearly reads as a search tool rather than a single-record or draft tool, but it never names a sibling (e.g. ingatlan_get_listing) to contrast against.

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 implied by 'live listings' and the sale/rent framing, which distinguishes it from the draft-management siblings, but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative. An agent can infer the case but must read sibling names to be sure.

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