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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts not in the annotations — inventory is restricted to active/unsold listings and results are sorted newest-first — but says nothing about result format, pagination behavior, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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, no filler, with the inventory scope front-loaded and the sort order as a short trailing clause. Every element earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally sketch the return shape; it only implies a newest-first list of listings. Given annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully documents all parameters, this is nearly complete but leaves the result format slightly under-specified.

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 every one of the seven parameters is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the filter dimensions (Objektart, Ort, Preis, Zimmer, Wohnfläche) and adds no matching syntax, null semantics, or range hints beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (durchsucht) + resource (Immobilienangebote) with explicit scope: active, unsold listings from a named provider in a named region. It does not name the complementary sibling get_property_details or otherwise differentiate itself from the other read tools, so it stops 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?

Usage is implicit — 'search by type, location, price, rooms, area' tells an agent what it is for, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention that get_property_details is the follow-up for a specific hit, and no note about how limit/pagination should be applied.

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