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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('Newest first as Street orders them'), pagination mechanics, and a summary of returned fields, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about deleted/archived handling beyond what the trashed/include_archived params hint at, nor about result caps or empty-set behavior.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by ordering/pagination. The trailing 'GET /properties' is mild redundancy but not costly.

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's one-clause summary of returned fields (address, status, price, bedrooms, owner link) is valuable, but for a 21-parameter tool with rich filters and an embed mechanism ('include' → 'included') the description is thin. It does not explain that related records are returned in an 'included' block, which is a structural aspect an agent would want when combining list and get results.

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 all 21 parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only echoes page/page_size. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no filter semantics (status, include, price ranges) beyond what the schema provides.

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 (list) and resource (properties) and clarifies the scope covers both sales and lettings listings, plus the headline fields returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from street_get_property or the sibling list tools, so differentiation is only implied by the plural resource.

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?

Offers pagination guidance ('page with page and page_size') and notes the newest-first ordering, which is the kind of context an agent needs when iterating. However it never says when to prefer this over street_get_property for a single record, nor when to use the type-specific list tools (street_list_sales, street_list_lettings_instructions, etc.), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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