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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: every result carries a url the agent should surface so the user can contact the owner. It says nothing about result volume, rate limits, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and geography, followed by the use case and the output-handling instruction. No filler, though the geography list in sentence one is somewhat long relative to its informational value.

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 16 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers domain, geography, intent, and one key return-value fact (results include urls). It leaves pagination workflow and the distinction from get_listing unstated, which keeps it short of fully complete.

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 88%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only ambient context (which cities and boroughs exist, e.g. Bushwick, Hell's Kitchen, Tel Aviv) that helps an agent fill location, but it does not explain sort, limit defaults, or pagination beyond what the schema states.

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 concrete verb (Search) and resource (rooms, shared apartments, sublets, apartments for rent) and names the source and geographic scope (Roomly, NYC boroughs, Israeli cities). It never names the siblings get_listing, list_locations or rent_stats, so differentiation from them is only implied by the word 'search'.

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?

"Use it when someone wants to rent a room, find a roommate, a sublet or an apartment" gives a clear intent-based trigger, and the closing sentence routes to search_url for the website equivalent. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to get_listing for a single known listing.

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