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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the upstream failure mode when date_type is omitted and enumerating the returned data fields (developer, status, percent complete, dates, location). It doesn't address auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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 sentence front-loads the resource and contents; the second delivers the critical usage caveat. 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough high-level context: scope (DLD development projects), returned fields, and the one mandatory filter behavior. The remaining parameters (sort, limit, offset, status, zone_id, etc.) are fully documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It's slightly thin on describing available filter variety, but schema fills that gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, every parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful parameter context by emphasizing that from_date/to_date/date_type must be used together and that omitting date_type causes the upstream to return nothing — a consequence not stated in the schema. The field list also clarifies what date_type values relate to (start/completion dates).

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 opens with a clear resource definition — 'Real-estate development projects registered with the Dubai Land Department' — and lists key returned fields (developer, status, percent complete, dates, location). This distinguishes it from sibling dld_search_* tools by resource type (buildings, lands, rents, transactions, valuations).

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?

It clearly explains the mandatory date filter ('A date range AND a date_type are both required; without date_type the upstream returns nothing'), which is a specific usage condition. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource scope and sibling names naturally route an agent to this tool when development projects are the subject.

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