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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful return shape ("compact list with a canonical URL"), but says nothing about default page size, whether results are truncated, or how the limit interacts with a large result set.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the capability statement front-loaded and the hand-off to get_project trailing. Every clause carries information.

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 10-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to drill down, which is the core need. The remaining gaps are pagination behavior and slug discovery, minor but real for a search endpoint.

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 60%, and the description's facet list (country, area, developer, bedrooms, price, completion status) mirrors the well-documented parameters rather than adding syntax or format meaning. The two least-documented parameters, q and limit, are not mentioned at all in the description.

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?

Specific verb ("Find") plus a precise resource ("off-plan and ready projects in the Palmera catalog") and an enumeration of the filterable facets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_project, so an agent can route between search and detail without opening either 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?

The description gives an explicit escalation path: "call get_project for the full content of one," which tells the agent when search is insufficient. It stops short of naming list_areas and list_developers as the way to obtain valid slug values, which are the other sibling relationships an agent would need.

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