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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 12-hour cache reuse rule, daily-allowance-gated live requests, the Realtor.com/RentCast source chain, and the 'unknown means unknown, never assumed' contract. The live-request behavior also explains why readOnlyHint=false despite this being a search, resolving a potential inconsistency rather than creating one.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent clause adds real semantics (filter classes, scoring, unknowns, cache, source). It is clause-dense rather than flabby, though the stacked list of ranked/excluded parameters makes it heavier than it needs to be.

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 28-parameter tool with no output schema, the description carries much of the return-value burden (0-100 match score with reasons and uncertainties, feature evidence class, source, last-confirmed-active) and the hard/soft/unknown model. It still omits pagination/sort behavior and several filter families, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 only 43% across 28 params, so the description must compensate — and it does by teaching the semantic taxonomy (hard vs soft vs exclusion) and naming max_price, min_bedrooms, min_bathrooms, property_types, must_have, ideal_max_price, preferred_bedrooms, nice_to_have, styles, avoid, exclude_property_types. Numerous parameters (investment, max_distance, bedrooms_exception, sort/limit/offset, area and year bounds) get no description-level explanation, leaving the gap only partly closed.

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 ('Find active U.S. homes for sale or rent') plus the exact geographic shapes accepted (city+state, ZIP, radius, polygon). That scope cleanly separates it from siblings like get_property_details (single listing) and compare_properties (multi-listing analysis).

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 clear operational context: hard requirements filter, soft preferences rank, avoid/exclude remove, and when cache vs live requests apply. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this search (e.g. versus compare_properties or get_property_details), which keeps it 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.