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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns up to 10 results, explains the fit labels (erfuellt, abweichend, unbekannt), and notes the listing link for contacting the agent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by input mode and return behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information with no obvious waste.

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?

Given the rich nested input schema, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers purpose, preferred input mode, result limit, fit interpretation, and contact path without duplicating structured fields unnecessarily.

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 detailed criteria fields are already fully documented. The description adds only the high-level preference for structured criteria over text, which is useful but does not significantly expand parameter semantics 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching published real estate listings on Objelio. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish its role from siblings such as compare_listings or get_listing.

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?

It gives useful input-mode guidance: structured criteria are preferred, with text as a fallback. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_listings, get_listing, or explain_criteria, so usage is only implied.

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