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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion of a 'live portfolio' (freshness/dynamic data), but adds nothing about pagination, result ordering, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

The quote of return fields (reference, title, operation, price, type, size, area and listing link) is redundant given a full output schema, and the bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length. It is front-loaded and readable, but some sentences do not earn their place.

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, all-optional search tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers scope, geographic footprint and operations. Only minor routing/behavior context is missing, so it is close to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates two concepts already fully documented in the schema (operation = sale/rent, price or monthly rent); it adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction semantics for the 13 parameters.

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 available homes and commercial properties in Metastate's live portfolio in Portugal), names the geographic scope and the two operations (sale/rent). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like ver_imovel (single listing) and consultar_precos_mercado without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by naming the portfolio and operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing away from alternatives such as ver_imovel or marcar_visita. A capable agent can infer intent, but nothing is stated about when this tool is the wrong choice.

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