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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavioral context on top: weekly refresh cadence, data provenance (companies' own sites), the caveat that prices are recorded verbatim and may be per m² or in USD, that each result carries the company's phone/WhatsApp, an update date and a bina.et photo link, plus an anti-fabrication instruction ("Never invent a listing or a price").

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 core purpose and the returned-field inventory are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by two short, high-value sentences for example queries and the no-fabrication rule. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return fields, provenance and freshness, so an agent knows what it will get back. The only gap is that it never says all seven parameters are optional and a bare call returns a default-limited result set.

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 description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents area, beds, type, limit, query, listing and max_price. The description's field list mostly mirrors output fields, not inputs; only the note that prices are "as the company wrote it (some per m² or in USD)" adds real meaning to how max_price should be interpreted. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with full scope: live Addis Ababa property listings aggregated from real-estate companies' own websites on bina.et/property. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like search_cars, search_hotels, and search_places.

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 usage context via concrete example queries ("apartment for rent in Bole", "3 bedroom for sale", "ቤት ኪራይ"), including Amharic input. It does not name any alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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