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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses filter applicability constraints (floor filters for apartments, lot area for houses/land), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or error behavior—common details expected for a search tool. The description is moderately transparent but not comprehensive.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage clarifications in just two sentences. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

For a complex tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context on parameter usage and filter constraints. However, it lacks any mention of what the search returns (structure, pagination, sorting), which would be helpful given no output schema exists. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: the locationName hierarchy (street, district, city) and the conditional applicability of floor/lot area filters. This enhances understanding of how to use the parameters correctly.

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's purpose: 'Search real estate listings' with specific filter dimensions (property type, transaction type, price range, area, floor, lot size, location). The verb 'search' and resource 'listings' are explicit, and the tool is well-distinguished by the detailed list of search criteria.

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?

While there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, the description provides practical usage guidance: using locationName for the most specific location, and clarifying that floor filters apply only to apartments and lot area filters only to houses/land. This gives clear context on how to use the tool correctly, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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