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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that no login, browser, or proxies are required, and by providing cost information ($0.02/call). These are useful behavioral traits beyond the annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Pull live real-estate listings straight from SS.ge'), and includes essential caveats (currency, no auth, cost). Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 tool's simplicity and the rich schema/annotations, the description provides sufficient context: source, scope, currency behavior, access requirements, and cost. It does not detail output fields, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a listing pull make this acceptable. The description complements the structured data well.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with rich descriptions, including known city IDs and deal_type behavior. The description itself only mentions 'by city' and currency, which adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents. Thus, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description is not required to compensate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('live real-estate listings straight from SS.ge'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the unique portal (SS.ge) and geographic focus (Georgia), and adds a specific detail about currency (GEL or USD) as set by the seller.

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: when a user needs live real-estate listings from Georgia's SS.ge portal, organized by city. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the country and portal are unambiguous, which is sufficient to guide an agent among many similar listing tools.

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