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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Public listings" implies a visibility scope, but there is no mention of authentication, result caps, pagination, default sort, or whether omitted filters match everything — significant gaps for a search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a compact parameter digest with no filler. It is efficient to the point of telegraphic, but nothing stated is wasted.

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 9-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return behavior, result limits, and default sort ordering. Instead it stops at a parameter echo, leaving the agent without enough to predict what a call returns or how to page through results.

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 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters (q, from/to format, tags, vertical enum, sort). The description largely restates these in a compact list rather than adding syntax or interaction detail (e.g., how tags combine, whether from/to must be paired, how price bounds behave). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search public listings") and marks the listings as public, which hints at scope distinction from adjacent tools. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings such as everlist_listing or everlist_verticals, 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit "search" framing, no conditions for choosing it over everlist_listing or everlist_verticals, and no statement about what happens with zero parameters despite all 9 being optional. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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