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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The second sentence does add non-structured context about the result payload (each result links to its Subletka page where the lister is contacted), which is genuinely useful, but there is nothing on result volume, paging behavior beyond the schema, or filtering gotchas.

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: the first front-loads purpose and the full filter surface, the second covers what a result is and the next step. No filler, though the second sentence is arguably expendable for calling the tool correctly.

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 read-only search tool with 13 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and the downstream shape of results adequately. It doesn't need to explain return fields since the description notes each result links to a Subletka page, though broader paging/output expectations could be clearer.

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 100%, so per the baseline this is a 3. The description restates the filter axes (district, dates, type, rooms, rent) but adds no syntax, defaults, or interpretation beyond what the thoroughly documented schema already provides for parameters like lang, sort, rooms and district.

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?

A specific verb (Search) plus resource (active rooms and flats) with explicit scope: cities, date window, place type, rooms, max rent. It clearly separates a search over many listings from a single-record lookup, but it never names get_listing or list_cities, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 the enumerated filter dimensions and the constraint to Warsaw/Kraków active listings. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_listing or list_cities, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions beyond 'active.'

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