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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'No login, no browser, no proxies' (indicating direct API access without auth or scraping overhead) and the pricing model ($0.02/call, x402 on USDC base), which are not disclosed elsewhere. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a clear purpose and resource, followed by essential trait highlights (no login/browser/proxies) and pricing. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant filler or repetition of required fields.

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 filtered-list tool without an output schema, the description covers the core function, filters, and a key behavioral trait (no auth needed). It doesn't describe the return format or pagination behavior, but the schema hints at pagination via max_pages. The lack of explicit response fields is a minor gap, but the tool's purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 filtering by deal type, property type, and city, which aligns with the schema, but it doesn't add any syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. The schema's enum and title fields offer sufficient semantic detail.

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 verb 'Pull' and the resource 'Storia.ro', specifying the scope as 'apartment and house listings' filtered by deal type, property type, and city. It differentiates this tool from sibling real-estate listing tools by explicitly naming Romania's biggest real-estate portal, making it distinct from alternatives like otodom-warsaw or rightmove-london.

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 clear context: this is for pulling Romanian apartment/house listings from Storia.ro, and notes 'No login, no browser, no proxies', suggesting ease of use. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the regional and portal specificity strongly implies appropriate use cases for Romania-focused queries.

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