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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-annotation context: listings are approved/public and availability is not real-time, though it omits pagination, result format, and other operational details.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the search scope, and immediately follows with a useful freshness caveat. There is no 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 six-parameter search tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It provides the domain and freshness caveat but leaves filtering semantics, listing types, and pagination behavior to inference.

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 only 17% across six parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning, constraints, or enum guidance. It does not compensate for the sparse 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?

The description uses a precise verb ("Search") and resource ("approved public OlaHome listings in Japan"), so the agent can identify the general operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_property_details, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It implies the tool is for finding approved public listings and adds a caveat about availability not being real-time. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with get_property_details.

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