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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results include a url on a-du.homes where a landlord can request management, and fields like license number and website are present only where known.

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 compact, action-first, and each sentence earns its place: scope, exclusions, use case, result behavior, and a concrete example. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the result shape (city, license number, website, url). It is slightly thin on default behavior when city is omitted or sorting/pagination details, but the schema covers limit and cursor.

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 67%; limit and cursor are well described in the schema, but city has no schema description. The description gives an example {"city": "Glendale"}, implying city is a filter, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's meaning or optionality, leaving that to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find residential property management companies on the A-du manager marketplace, scoped to single-family homes and ADUs in Los Angeles. It explicitly excludes multifamily-only and commercial managers, which separates it from sibling tools like search_services and search.

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 an explicit when-to-use phrase: 'Use for "who can manage my ADU rental for me"' and clarifies exclusions. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or give a when-not-to-use condition beyond manager type exclusions.

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