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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description layers on genuinely extra behavior: only online listings produce matches, drafts return an explanation instead of matches, output includes assigned agent, pipeline stage and the matched search, plus an auth requirement (linked PropertyList account or agency API key) and a visibility scope constraint.

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 purpose and organized into scope, constraints, and requirements. Parenthetical asides add useful detail without derailing, though a sentence or two could be tightened.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be specified, and the description still covers auth, visibility limits, and non-match behavior. The only real gap is the unexplained limit parameter.

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 50% — property_reference is documented in the schema (including the PL12345 example) and the description adds nothing to it, while the limit parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. Given only two parameters and a self-evident numeric bound, this is adequate but not compensating for the 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 — matching CRM clients whose saved search fits a given listing — and frames the outcome ('who to call about it'). The direction of the match is clear and distinguishable from the sibling match_buyer_to_inventory.

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 clear context: works for own listings and shared MLS listings the agency can sell, only online listings are matchable, drafts return an explanation, and get_contact should be used for the full picture. It never explicitly names the reverse-direction sibling match_buyer_to_inventory as the alternative, so it falls short of full when-not guidance.

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