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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral rule (never fabricate a geoId), but it does not disclose what the call yields (candidate list? coordinates? ambiguity handling) or that open-world results may include multiple matches.

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, front-loaded with the action and the constraint. Nothing is redundant and every sentence 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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and an enum parameter, the description is too thin for the agent to call it correctly — it never explains how countryCode or transaction narrow results or what a successful resolution returns. The only thing it fully conveys is the anti-hallucination rule.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not. Only "human place name" loosely maps to q; limit, countryCode, and especially the transaction enum (sale/rent) — the least intuitive parameter — are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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?

"Resolve a human place name before searching" states a specific verb (resolve) and resource (place name/geoId), and the second sentence clarifies the outcome is a geoId rather than free text. It is distinguishable from the property-search siblings, though it never names search_properties or another sibling explicitly.

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?

"Before searching" gives clear workflow ordering context, telling the agent to run this lookup ahead of any search call, and "never invent a geoId" implies what happens if the agent skips it. There are still no exclusions or guidance on what to do when multiple or zero locations match.

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