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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses a hard cap ('at most 20 newest matches'), what is returned (asking price, price verdict at time of match, link), an important channel constraint ('this server cannot send messages into the conversation by itself'), and data-quality caveats (aggregated market listings, may be incomplete, home may already be sold or rented). This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 with the trigger condition, then prerequisites, then output shape and caveats — a sensible order. It is slightly long and the caveat sentence is dense, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the operational facts an agent needs: the 20-match cap, the empty-before-confirmation state, and the risk that a listed home is gone. Nothing needed to call it or to set user expectations is missing.

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 both intentCode and since already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that intentCode comes from intent_publish_intent and that since is optional and returns only newer matches, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('list homes found for a property watch') and anchors it to a concrete user question ('what LivinIsto has found for an intent created with intent_publish_intent'). This makes it trivially distinguishable from the sibling write/setup tools intent_publish_intent and intent_withdraw_intent.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('when the user asks what LivinIsto has found') plus two prerequisites: the intent must be confirmed ('before the user confirms the intent there are no matches') and the intentCode is required. It does not explicitly rule out alternative tools, but the sibling set makes the boundary obvious.

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