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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: what a result contains (price, area, location, listing URL) and the mandatory practice of surfacing the URL to the user. Pagination mechanics (cursor) and rate/limits are left unstated.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisite, then output obligation. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, the catalog prerequisite and the URL hand-off, which is enough for correct invocation; it could go further on paging via cursor for a 21-parameter search tool.

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?

With 21 parameters and only 67% schema description coverage, the description barely touches parameters; its only contribution is steering the agent to get_catalog for valid propertyTypes/country values. Undocumented params such as limit, minPrice/maxPrice, minArea/maxArea, latitude and longitude get no compensating explanation, so it does not rise above the mid-coverage baseline.

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 ('Search real-estate listings') and enumerates the scope (homes, apartments, plots, commercial; sale or rent; many countries), so an agent immediately knows what this returns. It does not differentiate from the generic sibling tool `search` or `find_similar_listings`, which is the only gap.

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 prerequisite ('Call get_catalog first when unsure which property type or country values exist') and an output directive ('Always give the user the listing URL'). There are no when-not-to-use notes or comparisons against the sibling search/find_similar_listings tools, 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.