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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: max 20 newest matches, price and verdict at match time, a link, coverage limits from aggregated listings, and the risk that properties may already be sold or rented. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 description is dense but front-loads the trigger and key constraint, and most sentences carry useful information. It is somewhat long, but the length is largely justified by the behavioral context.

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 an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return structure in detail, yet it still covers timing, match count, pricing context, coverage limitations, and prerequisites. An agent has enough to decide when and how to call it.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates that intentCode is required and since returns only newer matches, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: list properties found for an intent created with intent_publish_intent. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling intent-management tools by tying the resource to a published intent watch.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use when the user asks what LivinIsto has found for an intent. It also clarifies that these are emailed matches, the server cannot post into the conversation, and before confirmation there are no matches, which covers key usage boundaries.

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