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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the records are 'verified' and each carries 'its official source', a provenance claim that tells the agent this is curated data rather than raw listings.

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 short sentences: what it is and why to trust it. No repetition of the title, no filler, and the enumeration is front-loaded where it is most useful.

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 and only three optional simple parameters, the description covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level and establishes data quality. Minor gaps remain around default result count and whether results are nationwide when region is absent.

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 all three parameters are documented structurally, and the description's list of programme kinds loosely maps to the type enum values. It still says nothing about how limit is applied or what region filtering means when omitted, so baseline 3 is right.

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 concrete resource (verified relocation programmes) and enumerates the four sub-categories, so an agent knows exactly what corpus it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search_incentives or get_incentive, which look like adjacent entry points to similar data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_incentives, get_incentive, or search_places, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Filterability by type/region is only inferable from the schema, not signalled in prose.

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