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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose auth state and inventory scope, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about result size limits (the schema caps limit at 24 with a default of 10), ordering, pagination, or what a result record contains. For a search endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, that leaves the agent guessing about the shape and volume of the response.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. The final sentence is arguably wasted space since it references a route the agent cannot inspect, but the overall economy is good.

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?

Eight parameters, none required, no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage — this is a case where the description should do more. It omits return shape, default result count, and the semantics of most filters, so an agent can construct a call but cannot predict what it gets back.

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 25%: just q and region are documented, while kind (which has an odd empty-string enum member), limit, min_price, max_price, min_bedrooms and min_plot_acres are bare. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — 'same filters as /for-sale/' is a pointer to unavailable information, not an explanation. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search currently available houses with land') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier (land-bearing properties only). It is distinguishable from get_home (single-property lookup) and the board_* tools, though it never names a sibling. The '/for-sale/' reference is opaque to an agent that cannot see that route.

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?

'Logged-out' signals an important precondition: this is callable without authentication, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_home for a specific listing, nor any exclusion or fallback. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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