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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by enumerating the exact output fields (price, address, beds, baths, sqft, lot size, property type, listing status), which helps set expectations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the main action and outputs, followed by concise use cases. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned data, and top use cases. It doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or data freshness, but the openWorldHint and overall simplicity make this acceptable. A clear and complete tool description.

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 100%, so the schema thoroughly documents the 4 parameters with descriptions and examples. The tool description does not add any information about parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches Redfin's real estate database and lists the returned fields (price, address, beds, etc.). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool get_property_details, but 'search' vs 'details' is implied. Misses the 5 because it doesn't name a sibling alternative.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'residential property research, investment analysis, or market comparison.' It does not mention the sibling tool or scenarios where another tool should be preferred, so it lacks exclusions. Clear context but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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