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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the effect is scoped to a search session, but says nothing about side effects (e.g., notifying the listing agent), whether the interest can be withdrawn, or what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise but borders on under-specified for a mutation that has two required, undocumented 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?

The tool is simple (two required scalar params, no output schema) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is close to sufficient. Gaps remain around session token provenance and the downstream effect of recording interest.

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 schema only supplies names and minLength constraints. "Within the search session" hints at what sessionToken represents and "property" maps to propertyId, but the description does not explain how a session token is obtained or whether it must come from search_properties.

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?

"Record explicit interest in a property" gives a specific verb and resource, and usefully clarifies that "select" means recording interest rather than reserving or purchasing. It does not differentiate from siblings such as create_inquiry or save_search, which represent adjacent commitments.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer on its own when to call this versus create_inquiry, save_search, or get_property, even though those are the most likely confusions.

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