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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavior ('short-lived search session') but leaves its lifetime, how it is consumed downstream, and any rate limits or result caps unexplained; it also sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true since a session is server-side state (idempotentHint=false is consistent with that). 'Deterministic safe previews' is never defined.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: two distinct behaviors (search and session creation) are compressed into one clause with no elaboration where elaboration is most needed.

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?

For a 20-parameter search tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. It never states what is returned (previews plus a session identifier?), how results are paginated or capped at size<=20, or how the session is subsequently used, leaving the agent to guess at both inputs and outputs.

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% across 20 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: no explanation of what a 'preview' returns, which session handle is produced, or what vocabulary is valid for categories, requiredFeatures, preferredFeatures and excludedFeatures (free-form strings with no documented values). Parameter names like priceMinEur are self-describing, which is the only reason this is not a 1.

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 verb+resource ('Search ... property previews') is identifiable, but the qualifiers 'deterministic safe' are unexplained jargon and the second clause ('create a short-lived search session') adds a side output that is never clarified. It gives no differentiation from siblings such as get_property or save_search, so an agent cannot tell which to reach for from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_property (single lookup) or save_search (persisting criteria). Critically, it never says that geoId must first come from the sibling resolve_location, which is the main prerequisite for calling this tool successfully.

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