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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds high-value behavior an agent cannot get elsewhere: a per-call charge of $0.002 USDC via x402 across Base/Solana/Arc, the guarantee that failed calls are not charged, 26 results per page, and that owner names are never returned. Pricing and non-billing-on-failure are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with source, geography and use case, followed by returns and cost. It is long but every clause carries information; the field list slightly over-runs since an output schema exists, keeping it from a 5.

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 paid, read-only, open-world search tool, the definition covers geography, filterable attributes, page size, privacy constraints, and the complete payment model. Even though an output schema exists, the explicit field listing and the 'owner names are not returned' caveat add useful expectation-setting without leaving anything an agent needs unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by framing lat/lon as searching 'near a point' (proximity semantics) and by disclosing page size of 26, which the schema's generic 'page number' text does not convey. City enumeration is duplicated from the schema rather than extended.

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?

Names a specific source and resource: 'NoBroker India owner-listed homes for rent or resale near a point in 10 cities', with the enumerated city list and the per-listing fields. This differentiates it from generic aggregators like magicbricks_india or squareyards_india by source and by owner-listed, no-broker scope, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Rent-or-resale search around a point is implied by 'for rent or resale near a point' and the city list, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to an alternative Indian portal when NoBroker lacks coverage.

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