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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: at most 10 results, facts only, newest-first ordering unless sorted by price, plus total match count, a huisly.nl link and a reusable search_token. It does not mention any auth or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then return behavior, then the follow-up workflow. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 13-parameter tool with a nested location object and no output schema, the description does the important work: it describes what comes back and how the search_token chains to get_new_listings. The residual gaps are the place/location input relationship, which the schema partly covers via 'A place from resolve_place'.

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 coverage is 62%, and the description only summarizes filters as 'price, size, room and property-type' — a restatement of what the schema already names. It adds ordering semantics for sort ('newest first unless sorted by price') but says nothing about min_rooms versus min_bedrooms, the language parameter, or the place-versus-location choice, leaving the competing location inputs unclear.

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 current Dutch rental or for-sale listings') is specific, and the description names the domain scope and the two listing types the required enum accepts. An agent can distinguish this from get_property or get_new_listings without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent forward: pass search_token to get_new_listings to see only new matches, with the scheduled-task use case called out. It gives no guidance on when to use this versus get_property or get_place_insights, and no mention that the location object must come from resolve_place, so it is clear but incomplete on alternatives.

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