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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: requires an agency API key, results are scoped to the caller's agency, and results are ordered newest first. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing authentication and data-scoping constraints.

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 three sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by use cases and a key constraint. No redundant phrasing; every clause adds 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?

The tool is simple, has strong annotations, and the description covers purpose, filters, ordering, auth, and scope. It doesn't detail return format or edge-case behavior, but for a list tool with these annotations, this is adequate. Minor gap: no mention of how the 'reference' parameter behaves if not found, but schema context implies empty result.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (status and reference). The description reinforces that filtering is optional and mentions status/reference explicitly. It does not add detail about the 'limit' parameter beyond what schema provides, so the added semantic value is modest.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('YOUR agency's own property listings') and adds ordering and filter details. It explicitly distinguishes this from other property searches by stating it 'only ever returns the calling agency's own properties', setting it apart from generic search_properties.

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?

It provides direct use-case examples: 'Use for "show my listings" / "is reference X still online?"' This gives clear context for when to employ the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the scope restriction makes it obvious.

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