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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful operational detail (the fixed collector identifier) and frames the action as submitting a Builder task, but it omits that this is an asynchronous job whose results must be retrieved via scraper_task_result/status.

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 opening sentence is a redundant multi-phrase keyword list (Zillow 房产信息 / 房产详细信息 / 房源信息 / property details) that repeats the same concept four ways before the actual purpose appears. The second sentence is tight and informative, but the front-loading is wasted on trigger 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?

With six fully documented parameters and no output schema, the input side is adequately covered. What is missing for a task-submission tool is the lifecycle: that a job is created and results are fetched separately, which matters given sibling tools scraper_task_result and scraper_task_status exist.

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 schema fully documents all six parameters including defaults and enum-like option lists. The description adds only the fixed collector ID, which is not a parameter, so it contributes marginally beyond structured data — baseline 3 applies.

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 second sentence states a concrete verb+resource: it submits a Zillow property-details collection Builder task with a fixed collector ID (zillow_product_by-filter), which distinguishes it from the other *_product siblings (amazon_product, airbnb_product). The first sentence is mostly trigger-keyword stuffing rather than purpose, but the action is still identifiable.

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 gives a trigger condition (user request for Zillow property info combined with collect/scrape/crawl/get/extract verbs), which implies when to invoke it. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions — nothing tells the agent why to pick this over airbnb_product or a generic google_search, and no prerequisites or follow-up steps are described.

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