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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds significant behavioral context: the enquiry goes to the agency's CRM, there is a per-IP daily allowance without an API key, and it sends personal details to a real estate agency, requiring consent. No contradiction with 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?

The description is structured in clear paragraphs, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage conditions and rate-limit context. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence contributes essential information; it could be tightened but is not 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 submission tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, side effects, consent, and rate limits. It does not describe the return value or error handling, but those are not critical for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds minor context by specifying that the 'reference' comes from search results and that contact details are needed, but this largely reiterates the schema. It meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not add substantial new meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit an enquiry'), the resource ('a specific listing'), and the context ('on behalf of a prospective buyer or tenant'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting this is the supported way to contact a listing agency, unlike other tools that don't expose direct contact details.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('once the user has chosen a property and wants the agency to contact them') and a critical condition ('Only submit with the person's clear intent and consent'). It also implies an alternative path by stating that direct phone/email details are not exposed by other tools, making this the appropriate route.

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