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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that returns are previews lacking contact details and that the call is free, but says nothing about pagination behavior, auth requirements, or result caps despite limit/offset parameters existing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost, then return shape and fallback. Every clause carries information with no padding.

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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape well but leaves filter/pagination semantics and any behavioral constraints unaddressed. It is viable but has clear gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 25% (just the query param), so the description should compensate, but it never mentions category filtering, limit, or offset semantics. The listed preview fields loosely hint at category but give no parameter guidance.

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 and resource ('Search active listings') and makes the scope explicit ('active'), which separates it from sibling tools. The return-shape sentence further pins down what kind of search this is.

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 to 'get_listing' for the full record, giving a clear alternative with a selection condition. It does not state when-not to search (e.g. cost/rate constraints or empty-query behavior), but the core routing guidance is present.

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