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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no login, no browser, no proxies, and the $0.02/call cost with x402 payment. It doesn't contradict the 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 a single focused sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and constraints, followed by a compact note on pricing/payment. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, the description adds essential operational context: live data, no auth/browser/proxies, and cost. However, with no output schema, it doesn't describe the return structure, which would further help the agent.

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 schema documents all four parameters with descriptions and examples, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description only restates 'by deal type, property type and city' which is already in the schema, adding no additional semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 action ('Pull live apartment and house listings') and the specific resource (Krisha.kz, Kazakhstan's real-estate classifieds portal), and explicitly names the filtering dimensions (deal type, property type, city). This distinguishes it from sibling real-estate tools 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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: it's for Kazakhstan listings, with 'No login, no browser, no proxies' and a price. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the Kazakhstan focus and portal name imply the intended use case.

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