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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by describing the kind of content returned (context, interpretation notes, insights), but discloses nothing about ranking, result limits, empty-result behavior, or whether property scoping is enforced.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, return content, then usage. No filler or redundancy, though the third sentence is the weakest and slightly hedged.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so at a useful level of abstraction. The remaining gap is operational detail (result count, ranking, pagination), which is minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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 schema fully documents query, property, and tags itself, including the pointer to list_properties. The description adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and resource (property knowledge base) and enumerates what it returns: business context, data interpretation notes, property-specific insights. That is concrete enough to separate it from generic retrieval tools, though it never names a sibling such as search-memories to make the boundary explicit.

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 offers a usage trigger ('when the user asks about topics that might have specific context stored in the knowledge base'), but that condition is hedging and self-referential, giving the agent little way to decide between this tool and search-memories or get-help-doc. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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