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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the tool returns scored matches with starting prices and a per-building 'why,' and it searches a curated (rather than raw) inventory. However, it never states the safety profile explicitly (read-only, no side effects) or any auth/rate-limit considerations; for a search tool the mutation risk is low, but the burden was the description's to carry.

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?

Three sentences with zero wasted words: purpose+scope, return format, and usage boundary. The core verb and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence earns its place by adding decision-relevant information.

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 moderately complex tool (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essentials: what is searched, where, what is returned, and when it should be used. Since there is no output schema, the description's return-format disclosure is essential and present. It does not explain how scoring works, how parameters like neighborhoods or budget_max interact, or how to craft an effective query, but none of these are required for a competent call.

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 exactly 50%: city, query, and budget_max already have descriptions, while limit, bedrooms, and neighborhoods are documented only by type/enum/default. The description adds some contextual value by revealing that results are scored, which implies the query parameter drives relevance ranking, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema enum/constraints already convey. A 3 baseline is appropriate given borderline coverage.

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 verb (Search), a specific resource (Taco Street's curated apartment inventory), and a precise geographic scope (Austin, Dallas, Houston). The return behavior (scored matches, starting prices, a 'why' per building) further pins down what the tool does. Its inventory-search purpose is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which all concern locators, answers, or shortlists.

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?

The closing sentence 'Use for long-term rentals only' gives an explicit usage boundary, telling the agent not to apply this tool to short-term rental queries. The context for when to search is clear from 'curated apartment inventory,' but the description never names alternatives or states when to prefer ask_a_locator or request_locator_help instead, so it misses the explicitness required for a 5.

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