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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description goes beyond it by disclosing that criteria are ANDed (only `in` gives OR), that results are paged, and where to resume via next_offset. It omits anything about result volume, default paging behavior interaction, or the shape of returned appraisal records, but the added semantics are genuinely useful.

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 purpose, followed by operational constraints — no filler. The trailing "Useful fields" list is compressed to bare names, which is efficient but slightly raw.

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 five parameters, nested criteria objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics: how filters combine, how paging continues, where field names come from, and which fields matter. The returned record shape is not described, though rex_get_appraisal partially covers 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description largely restates the schema's AND-combination rule and the next_offset paging hint. Its one real addition is the list of useful field names (appraisal_date, agent_id, pipeline_stage_id, price_asking, etc.) that an agent can feed into criteria.name, which is helpful but not elaborated into syntax.

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 and disambiguates the domain term ("listing presentations / market appraisals"), which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It doesn't explicitly route to rex_get_appraisal for single-record fetches, so differentiation from siblings is implied rather than stated.

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 AND-combination rule and the paging contract (offset/limit with next_offset) tell the agent how to drive the tool, and it defers field-name discovery to rex_describe_search_fields. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no mention of rex_get_appraisal as the alternative for retrieving one appraisal by id.

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