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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful constraint beyond that — results are public property references only — but says nothing about result size, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the output constraint; nothing is padded. It could be slightly tighter, but every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, and output nature adequately. The one notable gap is failing to position this against the sibling property-search tools.

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 0%, so the schema gives no meaning for "query" beyond type and maxLength. The description partially compensates by indicating the query matches against property names and destinations, which is real added semantics, but it doesn't describe matching behavior, tokenization, or the 160-char limit.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Search") with a concrete resource ("published property names and destinations") and scopes it to the composer's property picker, so the purpose is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling search_properties, leaving an agent to guess which search surface to use.

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?

"For the composer's property picker" implies the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative such as search_properties or search_nearby_properties. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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