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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns ACTIVE listings only, ranks by semantic similarity, includes a score per item, uses a multilingual embedding index, and notes that vertical filtering is applied server-side. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by vivid examples and decision guidance for the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the rich examples and the important search_listings comparison.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description provides all necessary context for selecting and invoking the tool: scope, use cases, alternatives, result ranking, active-listing restriction, score behavior, and optional vertical filter. Nothing important 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?

The description adds useful examples and clarifies the meaning-oriented query semantics, but it introduces a potential error: it says vertical narrows to 'jobs/real_estate/vehicle/service' while the schema enum is 'career|real_estate|vehicle|service', so an agent might pass the invalid value 'jobs'. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, though its schema constraints make it fairly self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic (meaning-based) search over Teppek's live listings'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from search_listings by emphasizing meaning-based matching over exact keywords, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use it when the user describes what they want in natural language rather than exact keywords'. It also names the alternative and the trade-off: 'prefer search_listings for precise keyword/role/country/category/price filtering and exact counts; prefer semantic_search when meaning, synonyms, or fuzzy intent matter'.

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