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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main addition is the word 'published' — an important scope restriction that excludes unpublished resources. Beyond that it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding — good economy — but for an eight-parameter search tool it is under-specified rather than truly concise, leaving the reader to reconstruct behavior from the schema.

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?

The rich schema (100% coverage, defaults, enums, cursor pagination notes) and the readOnly/idempotent annotations fill most of the gap, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be described. Still, nothing in the description mentions that results are paginated or that facets can be combined, which an agent must infer.

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%, including slug sourcing from /places and /categories, sort defaults tied to presence of q, and cursor semantics, so the schema carries the parameter explanation. The description only echoes the facet groups (text, place, category) without adding constraints or format detail beyond them.

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 ('Search') plus the resource ('published foreclosure resources') and the three facets it searches by (text, place, category). That is enough to separate it from get_listing (single item) and the list_* enumerators, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among get_listing, list_places, list_categories, list_sources or get_stats. The only signal is the verb 'Search', which weakly implies discovery when filters are known.

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