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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: no authentication needed, no browser scraping, no proxy requirements, results sorted freshest-first, and a per-call cost. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's operational characteristics without needing to inspect the implementation.

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 well-structured: the first sentence states the core function, the second covers access simplicity, and the final clause provides cost. Each element carries useful information without redundancy, front-loading the primary action.

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 moderate parameter count and rich schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, from where, how fresh it is, and access prerequisites. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the structure of returned listings (e.g., fields like price, location, URL). This is a modest gap, but the description still provides enough for an agent to make an informed call.

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%, and each parameter already has a detailed description (e.g., emirate's explanation about sitemap pages, max_items meaning with max_listing_age_days). The main description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Pull live apartment, villa, penthouse and townhouse listings'), the specific source (PropertyFinder.ae, the UAE's biggest real-estate portal), and the filtering dimensions (deal type and emirate). This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools by naming the exact portal and property types.

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 for when to use the tool: to fetch live UAE property listings from PropertyFinder.ae, with filtering by deal type and emirate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the niche scope and mention of 'No login, no browser, no proxies' implicitly guide usage. A brief comparison to sibling real-estate tools would elevate it to a 5.

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