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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope beyond annotations: only agencies with active listings are returned, and results include current buy/rent stock and asking-price ranges. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only query that is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource, geographic constraint, and included data efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides enough purpose and result scope for a simple read-only lookup. It does not mention the optional locale parameter at all, though the schema covers it. Usage guidance against sibling tools is missing, but the core call semantics are complete.

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 both commune and locale are already documented in the input schema. The description hints that commune must be a supported Luxembourg town, which aligns with the schema but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get every estate agency with active listings in a supported Luxembourg town. It also clarifies the included data (buy/rent stock and asking-price ranges). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_for_sale or get_market_context, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives context that the town must be supported and agencies must have active listings, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not tell an agent when to choose this over search_for_sale, search_rentals, or get_market_context. This is implied usage only.

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