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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details: 'live' fetching, no authentication/proxy setup, and the $0.02/call fee with x402 payment rail. These go beyond the structured annotations and help the agent understand operational and cost implications.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence identifies the resource and filters, and the second adds access and pricing. Every clause earns its place with no filler. The em-dash structure is slightly informal but does not hurt readability.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at what returned listing rows contain. It says 'live apartment and house listings' but does not specify fields like price, URL, or number of rooms. While the input parameters are thoroughly documented, the absence of any return-format description leaves a notable gap for a scraping 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions deal type, property type, and city, but this merely echoes the schema fields. It does not add new semantic meaning for max_items, max_pages, or the exact path format that the schema already explains.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('Otodom.pl — Poland's biggest real-estate classifieds portal') with clear scope (by deal type, property type, and city). It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling real-estate tools by naming the exact source and country.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it is the tool for Polish Otodom.pl listings, highlighted by 'Poland's biggest real-estate classifieds portal'. It also notes 'No login, no browser, no proxies' as practical advantages. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the top tier.

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