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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding ordering semantics ('closest in price first') and the matching rules that determine results. It also flags that returned properties carry oracle_verified and oracle_attestation_url, useful output enrichment beyond the annotations.

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-loads the core similarity definition and the use cases, with the oracle field note placed last. Two tight sentences plus a short caveat; the trailing note is slightly tangential but relevant to what comes back.

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 so return values need not be explained, and the description covers matching logic, ordering, and a data-freshness/verification flag. Adequate for an agent to call correctly, with only minor gaps around limit/language semantics.

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 67%, with limit undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by defining what 'similar' means, which governs how the required reference parameter is interpreted, and by clarifying price ordering. It still doesn't explain the limit or language parameters directly.

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 (find listings similar to one property) and enumerates the exact similarity dimensions: same market, town, home type, bedroom count, price within ~25%. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like search_properties, find_price_reductions, and find_properties_by_description.

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?

Provides concrete trigger examples ('show me alternatives to PL12345', 'anything like this but cheaper?') so the agent knows the intent that selects this tool. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling to route away from, which keeps it short of a 5.

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