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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the schema does not: an implicit seven-day observation window on the default availability and a cash default for price filtering, both of which materially change results and are not encoded anywhere in the schema.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by the defaults an agent would otherwise get wrong. No filler, though the second sentence compresses three separate default behaviors into one clause and could be split for scannability.

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 an 11-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the critical defaults and hints at return content (source links, price basis, observation dates). Gaps remain around pagination/result limits and what 'non-demo' actually excludes, but nothing essential to issuing a correct call is missing.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains the two most ambiguous ones well (priceKind defaults to cash; availability defaults to recent observations), but leaves sort values like 'evidence', 'recommended' and 'acre_price' and the availability enum members 'historical'/'unconfirmed' undefined, so compensation is partial.

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 and resource ('Search public, non-demo land listings') plus the payload an agent can expect (source links, price basis, observation dates). Siblings (get_land_listing, compare_land_listings, read_source_coverage) are distinct enough by name that no explicit routing sentence is strictly needed, but none is offered.

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 conveys the default search context ('available listings observed within seven days') and steers the agent to set priceKind explicitly when comparing non-cash prices. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer get_land_listing or compare_land_listings over this one, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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