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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it requires no sign-in and specifies the return payload shape (URL, short answer, audience, calculator flag, last-checked date) plus an instruction to cite the URL and date.

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 trigger guidance is front-loaded, which is good, but the repeated 'Also use it when...' construction makes the middle dense and list-heavy, and the return-field and citation details could be tightened. Every element is relevant, but the prose is longer than needed for the decision it supports.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description's return-value summary is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the trigger conditions, persona semantics, and auth expectation are all present. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to construct a valid call.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain persona (enumerating buyer, seller, renter, landlord, foreigner, agent) and query (empty means list everything for that persona), but limit — its default of 5 and maximum of 25 — is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 description states a specific verb (search) and resource (Homejourney guides/help articles), then enumerates the exact topic domains covered: grants and eligibility, BTO and resale, stamp duty, loans, MOP, tenancy, agent operations, and account management. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_listings and search_agents, which target different resource types.

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?

Three explicit 'use this when' clauses give concrete trigger scenarios across consumer, agent, and account domains, plus a clear instruction to leave query empty to list all guides for a persona. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative for overlapping needs, keeping it just below top marks.

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