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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, aligning with the read-oriented 'Pull live' description. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating 'No login, no browser, no proxies', which clarifies access/execution behavior, and 'live' indicates real-time data. 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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function and includes supporting details in an efficient manner. The pricing and access clarifications are brief and useful, with no redundant or filler language.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description combined with full schema coverage covers the essential context: source, scope, deal types, and output limits. No output schema exists, but the description does not describe return value structure; still, the tool's behavior is sufficiently clear for typical use.

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?

Schemas provide 100% coverage for all four parameters (deal_type, max_items, max_pages, location_identifier), so the description does not carry the burden. The description reinforces the location_identifier flexibility ('London or any other Rightmove location code') but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 pulls live for-sale and to-rent property listings from Rightmove.co.uk, specifying the source (UK's biggest property portal) and scope (London or any Rightmove location code). This distinguishes it from siblings by naming the exact platform and geographies, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool: when live Rightmove UK property listings are needed, for London or any location code. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use this instead of other national tools'), though the source name and location handling make usage context clear.

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