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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: default window of 7 days and 15 miles, nearest-first ordering, a 20-result cap, and what fields each result contains (including the address-or-city fallback) — valuable since there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose and ordering first, then defaults, then return shape. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes return values and count limits, and it supplies the missing defaults. Remaining gaps are minor (interaction of city with lat/long, radius behavior on the point query), so it is nearly complete for a read-only search tool.

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 67%, so the schema documents most params, but the description supplies defaults not present in the schema (7-day window, 15-mile radius) and clarifies the city-vs-coordinates alternative. It does not address the latitude/longitude pairing rule in detail, which the schema partly covers.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (estate sales) and adds scope details: geographic area (DFW), ordering (nearest first), and defaults. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with sibling tools like get_estate_sale or plan_estate_sale_route, so it falls short of the 5 criterion of sibling differentiation.

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 description implies the use case (finding upcoming sales near a city or point) and gives defaults for date range and radius, but never states when to prefer this tool over get_estate_sale or plan_estate_sale_route, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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