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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds non-obvious behavior: punctuation/accents are ignored and name lookups also return completed/sold-out buildings. It doesn't mention pagination or the shape of results, but for a read-only search the added behavioral context is solid.

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?

Front-loaded and organized by query type with concrete examples like q="Petra Tower". Dense and functional, though slightly verbose with multiple query-phrasing examples that could be trimmed.

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?

With readOnlyHint covering safety and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the primary query semantics and routing for a 9-param search. Remaining gaps (sort/limit/pagination, price-filter semantics) are minor for the tool's core purpose.

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 coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate. It explains q, company, city, and status well, but leaves sort (a 5-value enum), limit, verified, max_price, and min_price entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (development projects/buildings) with explicit scope: by name, city, or developer. It cleanly differentiates itself from siblings like search_listings and search_companies by anchoring on project/building entities.

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?

Explicitly routes intent to parameters: q for building/tower names, company for developers ('NOT q'), city for location searches, plus status for pre-sale/construction. It even maps user phrasings to the correct parameter, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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