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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description layers on behavior the annotations cannot: result ordering, the no-search fallback that returns an explanation, the required linked PropertyList account or agency API key, and the scope limit to the calling agency's visible clients. Return format specifics are absent, but an output schema exists, so this is close to complete.

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 core result definition and structured into short paragraphs, but a few clauses are redundant ('the same search the CRM runs for that client') and the auth/scope sentence is dense. Slightly verbose without being 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?

For a read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, ordering, fallback behavior, auth prerequisites, and data scope. Minor gaps remain around limit/pagination behavior and what distinguishes 'shared MLS' listings, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 67%. The description adds real value for contact_id (source it from find_contacts or my_pipeline) and implies the limit's meaning via 'listings that fit', but says nothing about limit bounds/default or the language enum, which the schema already documents. This is the baseline 3 for a partially covered 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+resource and scope: the listings matching one client's search within the caller's agency CRM, with explicit ordering (own listings first, then shared MLS, newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like match_inventory_to_buyers (reverse direction) and search_properties (unsaved-search fallback), which are both named in context.

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 explicit when-to-use (client with a saved search or described search), when-not (client with no search returns an explanation rather than a guess), and the alternative ('use search_properties instead'). It also names the prerequisite tools (find_contacts for contact_id, get_contact to see what has been sent).

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