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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: output preserves source evidence and price basis, and the result must not be read as an appraisal, title opinion, or buildability guarantee — useful framing for how an agent should present results. It does not say how invalid or duplicate IDs are handled.

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, front-loaded with the verb and cardinality, then the interpretive caveat. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does note that source evidence and price basis are preserved. It is adequate for a single-parameter read-only tool, though it leaves the result structure and error behavior implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of `ids`. It partially does by tying the input count to 'two to five public listings', matching the minItems/maxItems, but it never says where to obtain those IDs (search_land is the obvious source) or that the pattern restricts the identifier format.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (compare land listings) and adds an explicit cardinality bound, which distinguishes it from the singular get_land_listing sibling. It stops short of naming siblings by name, so an agent must infer the split from the verbs alone.

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 2-5 bound implies usage, but there is no explicit routing guidance: nothing says to call search_land first to obtain IDs, or to use get_land_listing instead when only one listing is needed. The second sentence is a liability disclaimer (not an appraisal, title opinion, or buildability guarantee) rather than a when-to-use rule.

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