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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable non-schema context: results are public and the call costs 1 credit. It still does not describe pagination, rate limits, or the shape of returned listings, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes only useful details such as public availability and credit cost. There is no repetition or filler.

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 read-only search tool with annotations and no output schema, the core invocation requirement and credit cost are covered. However, optional parameters are underdocumented and return values, pagination, or result limits are not addressed.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning to the required url parameter by specifying city, zip code, or filtered search URLs. It does not compensate for the undocumented country_code and cache_max_age parameters, and tld is only explained in the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Redfin listing results'), and clarifies that it operates on a Redfin search or listing-results page URL. It is clear on its own, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling Redfin tools such as redfin_forSale or redfin_forRent.

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?

Provides a useful input precondition: the URL should come from a city, zip code, or filtered Redfin search page, and it notes a 1-credit cost. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of sibling Redfin search/listing tools or when not to use it.

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