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 useful behavioral context: it emphasizes 'live' data, the lack of login/browser/proxies (server-side fetch), and a transparent cost of '$0.02/call' with payment method. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate operational characteristics.

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 crisp sentences: the first states the core function, the second covers key operational benefits and cost. Every clause earns its place, with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the 'what', 'where', and high-level operational details, but there is no output schema, so the agent is left without guidance on the structure of the returned listings (e.g., fields, pagination, item limits). While the input schema is thorough, the lack of any return-value description or mention of pagination behavior is a notable gap for a tool that agents will call programmatically.

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's parameters, but adds no new parameter-level meaning (e.g., format hints, interactions, or edge cases). It does not alter or enrich what the schema already says.

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 opens with a specific action ('Pull live apartment and house listings') and a specific resource ('Storia.ro, Romania's biggest real-estate classifieds portal'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It explicitly mentions filtering by deal type, property type, and city, which distinguishes it from sibling tools covering other countries or domains.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (for Romanian real-estate listings) and highlights benefits like 'No login, no browser, no proxies' and low cost. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like otodom-warsaw or rightmove-london, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks direct exclusions.

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