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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: it discloses that owner names are omitted from results, that the output is a list of addresses/values/property types, and that the current connector only returns demo/sample records. This is valuable and goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters, then usage examples, then return contents and a data caveat. It is somewhat long with four example questions, but each sentence adds useful routing or expectation-setting information without significant waste.

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 low-complexity, four-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what is not returned, and the critical caveat that current results are demo/sample records. An agent can select and call this tool with accurate expectations.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description mentions zip, subdivision, neighborhood, and street, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces intent and example phrasings but does not materially deepen parameter-level semantics.

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: 'Search for real estate properties in a geographic area.' It also distinguishes itself from owner-based searches by explicitly noting that owner names are not returned, and it frames itself as the area-based property search tool among many real-estate siblings.

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?

The description gives clear, explicit use cases: 'Use this for questions like...' with concrete examples for zip, neighborhood, street, and average value queries. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the examples provide sufficient context for an agent to route area-based questions here.

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