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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety and side-effect profile is well covered. The description adds useful scope context — the current-calendar-year coverage and mandatory date range — that helps agents set expectations. It does not mention pagination or output format, but these are partially addressed by the schema's offset/limit descriptions.

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 composed of three tight sentences that cover the domain, the output fields, the temporal scope, and the mandatory input. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing — every sentence earns its place and the key facts are front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the rows contain and the critical timeframe constraint. The remaining invocation details — sorting, paging, filtering — are fully documented in the input schema, and annotations cover the behavioral contract.

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 parameter, including enums like usage and date_type, is already documented. The description only mentions that a date range is required, which repeats the schema's required fields. It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific resource — 'Dubai rental contracts registered through Ejari with the Dubai Land Department' — and enumerates the data fields returned. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like dld_search_transactions, dld_search_lands, and dld_search_valuations by specifying 'rental contracts' as the subject.

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 explicitly states that 'a date range is required,' which is an essential usage precondition. It also provides temporal scope ('current calendar year') so an agent knows not to expect historical records. However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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