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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the return fields ('address, price, status, photos, agent, office, property details and remarks, without empty fields'), notes that count=true returns total matches (and may be slower on big feeds), and explains pagination via next.offset or next.lastId. This goes beyond the annotations and 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?

The description is a single, tightly written paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then enumerates filters, return values, and pagination without any redundant or filler sentences. Every clause adds useful information for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (47 parameters, no output schema), the description does a good job covering the essential context: it describes what can be filtered, what is returned, and how to paginate and count. It omits some details like default status (Active) or default type (residential and rental), but those are clearly stated in the schema descriptions, so the overall completeness is strong.

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 the schema already documents all 47 parameters in detail. The description provides a high-level list of filter categories (keyword, status, type, price, beds, baths, area, year, city, zip, neighborhood, agent, broker, features, map polygon) and mentions count and pagination, but it does not add meaning or syntax beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'MLS listings', and lists filtered attributes (keyword, status, type, price, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling tools like simplyrets_get_listing or simplyrets_list_open_houses. An agent can immediately understand that this is a broad listing search endpoint.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('Search MLS listings ... by keyword, status ...'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The note 'Pass count=true to get the total' and pagination hints provide some operational context, but a clearer statement such as 'use this instead of get_listing when you need to find multiple listings' is missing.

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