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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail about filter applicability, but it does not mention return format, pagination, sorting, authentication, or any side effects. For a search tool, the core behavior is implied, but important operational traits like result limits or default ordering are absent, leaving a moderate transparency 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 two sentences and efficiently front-loads the core purpose before providing targeted usage hints. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. The structure clearly separates what the tool does from how to use specific parameters.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description does a solid job of covering key usage nuance, particularly filter-to-property-type constraints. However, it omits details about result behavior (e.g., pagination, ordering, default limits) that an agent might need to set expectations. It is complete enough for a straightforward search but not fully exhaustive.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how to use locationName (choose the most specific known location) and which property types support floor vs. lot area filters. This extra guidance enhances parameter understanding, so a 4 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search real estate listings by property type, transaction type, price range, area, floor, lot size, and location.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('real estate listings'), and enumerates the main filter dimensions, making the purpose unmistakable even without sibling comparisons.

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 provides practical usage guidance, notably: 'Use locationName for the most specific known location (e.g., street, district, or city)' and explains which filters apply to which property types ('floor filters are for apartments, and lot area filters are for houses or land'). It lacks explicit alternatives because no sibling tools are provided, but it clearly indicates when and how to use the tool and its filters.

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