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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with search. The description adds that punctuation/accents are ignored and that name lookup also finds completed/sold-out buildings, which are useful behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 concise (120 words) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose, second gives examples, third explains parameter distinction. No fluff.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description only covers the two main parameters (q, company) in depth. Other important parameters like sort, limit, status, price range, and verified are left unexplained. Given low schema coverage and no output schema, the description should be more comprehensive to fully guide the agent.

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 adds significant meaning for the `q` and `company` parameters, explaining their usage and giving examples. However, it does not explain other parameters (sort, limit, status, etc.), which limits completeness. Baseline 3 is raised to 4 for the added value on key parameters.

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 searches projects/buildings by name, city, or developer. It distinguishes between using `q` for name lookups and `company` for developer searches, and gives concrete examples like 'Petra Tower' and 'Pro Invest'. The verb 'search' and resource 'development projects/buildings' are specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: `q` for project/building name, `company` for developer name. It warns against using `q` for developer names and gives example queries. This helps the agent select the correct parameter for different user intents.

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