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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe query. The description adds the scope 'authorized' and 'in Mexico', which is useful context, but it omits behavioral details like default ordering, pagination, or how results are returned—though an output schema exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the main filters. It's concise and easy to scan, though it might be slightly more structured with explicit separators, but it earns a 4 for being tight and clear.

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?

Given the tool is a search with multiple optional parameters, the description covers the core use case but doesn't mention how filters can be combined, default behavior (e.g., if no filters are provided), or ordering of results. The presence of an output schema compensates for return details, but not for usage nuance. It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema provides thorough descriptions for every parameter (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond listing the filter categories. It repeats the filters already in the schema but doesn't clarify semantics like how 'near' works with radius or the currency for price. Since the schema is rich, the description doesn't need to repeat it, but it also doesn't add meaningful value beyond the trigger condition.

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 clearly states the tool finds PropFácil property listings in Mexico, listing key filters (city, transaction type, price, bedrooms, radius). This sets a specific purpose, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it returns a list of matching properties.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to find authorized PropFácil property listings' gives a direct trigger. It also enumerates the filter criteria (transaction type, price, bedrooms, radius), which guides when to invoke it. However, it doesn't contrast with sibling tools like render_property_results or get_property_list, so the selection logic isn't fully specified.

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