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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful result-shape context (individual homes/plots with development flags, not development cards), but says nothing about pagination limits, auth, or rate behavior beyond the 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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the scope constraint first and the sibling routing last. The 'page: Result page, default 1' sentence repeats the schema verbatim and earns little, but overall it is tight.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It is complete enough for a filtered search, missing only peripheral details like page-size limits or total-result behavior.

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 nine parameters are already documented. The description restates the filter categories and the 'page: default 1' value, which duplicates the schema rather than adding syntax, units, or interaction constraints.

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+resource+scope ('Search Rightmove's new-homes-for-sale listings for a location') and explicitly distinguishes the result granularity ('individual new-build homes and plots ... not development-level cards'). This differentiates it from rightmove_search and other Rightmove siblings at a glance.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use rightmove_search to search Rightmove properties.' That names an alternative for the general case, though it does not contrast against rightmove_commercial_search or rightmove_student_search, which an agent might also confuse with this vertical.

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