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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: distance sorting requires an origin, radius_km bounds results around it, and an empty results array means no active listings matched.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative 'use this first' and the trigger phrases, then the filters and sorting rules. Slightly dense as one paragraph and the parenthetical Hebrew examples add length, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers filters, sorting preconditions, and the empty-result case; the only gap is routing relative to search_nearby for geo queries.

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 calling out inclusive min/max price bounds, the title/description scope of query, and what relevance sorting actually does ('put title matches first').

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Searches active Community Board listings') and enumerates the domains it covers (second-hand items, vehicles, apartments, jobs, professionals, pets, events). It clearly separates itself from get_listing and list_categories, but does not distinguish itself from search_nearby despite overlapping geography/radius behavior.

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?

Strong routing guidance: 'Use this first whenever the user asks to find, search for, buy or rent something locally,' backed by multilingual trigger examples. It gives no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer search_nearby over distance sorting here).

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