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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the response shape ('Shows cards and a map'), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, and the core action plus optional filters are front-loaded ahead of the output note. Appropriate for an eight-parameter read tool.

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 no output schema, the description does note the response presentation (cards and map), and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. The main remaining gap is the absence of any implicit result-size or pagination expectation, though limit/offset are documented in the schema.

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%, with examples for city/state, defaults and bounds for limit/offset, and unit notes for price, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only lists four of the eight filters and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 apt.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List properties the user has saved') and enumerates the filter dimensions, which lets an agent distinguish it from the mutating siblings like spur_save_properties. It stops short of naming the closest alternative, spur_search_properties, so the differentiation from search is only implied by the word 'saved'.

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 phrase 'properties the user has saved' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over spur_search_properties or spur_get_property. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer the boundary between listing saved records and searching.

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