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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the ranking behavior (by active listing count) and a result cap, but 'Returns up to 10 agencies' conflicts with the schema's limit maximum of 25, which could mislead an agent about result size.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then output fields, then usage. The enumeration of return fields is somewhat padded given an output schema exists, but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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?

Safety profile is covered by annotations and return values by the output schema, and the description supplies the domain (Spanish area) and workflow context. The missing piece is any explanation of the limit parameter and the correct resolution of the 10-vs-25 discrepancy.

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 only 50%: location is documented in the schema, but limit is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions the limit parameter and instead asserts a fixed cap of 10, which the schema contradicts (max 25), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 PropertyList agencies (estate agents)'), plus scope (a given Spanish area) and ordering (ranked by active listing count). It is clearly about agencies rather than properties or market stats, though it never names a sibling tool to make the boundary explicit.

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 a concrete when-to-use situation: 'Use this after a buyer has narrowed in on an area and wants to know which agencies dominate it.' It lacks explicit when-not or named alternatives (e.g., area_market_summary), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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