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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful detail that the date range filters against licence dates, but it does not disclose return paging, default ordering, or any edge behaviors; this is moderate but not rich behavioral context.

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 with no filler: the first states the resource and output fields, the second states the key filter constraint. The information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

Between the description and the fully covered schema, an agent has the required fields, filter semantics, output fields, and optional paging/sort controls needed to call the tool. It could be more complete with explicit when-to-use guidance relative to dld_list_brokers/dld_list_areas, but for a basic list operation it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that from_date/to_date are matched against licence dates, which clarifies the date parameters' semantics. It does not add new meaning for sort/limit/offset/include_arabic, but the schema already documents those.

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 identifies the specific resource ('real-estate developers registered with the Dubai Land Department') and the fields returned, and the title/name supply the 'list' verb. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like dld_list_areas and dld_list_brokers, though the description itself never states an explicit action.

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 one operational constraint: a date range is required and is matched against licence dates. However, it does not say when to choose this over sibling list/search tools or provide exclusion criteria, leaving usage timing to inference.

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