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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by specifying the data scope (registered buildings) and that no date range is needed, which is not captured in annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default ordering, pagination behavior, or whether results include only current data, which would be valuable. 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core information (what it searches) before listing filters and alternatives to date range. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by separating syntax from semantics, but overall it is well-sized.

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's moderate complexity (8 params, all optional, with enums and an example), the description covers the main purpose and key filters, but it does not explain the output structure (no output schema provided) or how to interpret results (e.g., what 'total' refers to in offset description). The schema handles parameter semantics, but the description leaves the agent to infer output format from the parameter list and sibling tool patterns. A slightly more detailed description of returned fields and pagination would improve completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including enums and examples. The description adds a high-level overview of filter types but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's detailed per-parameter descriptions. Since the schema does heavy lifting, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for registered buildings in Dubai, listing the specific data fields (building number, floors, rooms, etc.), and explicitly notes that no date range is needed and lists key filters. This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like dld_search_lands, dld_search_projects, and dld_search_transactions, which target different entity types.

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 provides clear context: it is for registered buildings, and it explicitly mentions the availability of filter by zone, freehold, leasehold, or off-plan status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., 'use this for buildings, dld_search_projects for projects'), leaving some inference to the agent.

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