search_listings_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the auto-pagination and merged-list behavior, which is useful. But it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, error handling, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool, read-only is implied, but not stated. The description adds some behavioral context but not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the action and then gives the usage condition. It is appropriately concise and well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description covers only the pagination behavior and usage condition, leaving out parameter semantics, return format details, error handling, and any safety or permission information. For a tool of this complexity, the description is significantly incomplete, making it hard for an agent to call correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. The only indirect reference is 'up to N pages', which hints at maxPages, but it doesn't explain city, sort, query, price ranges, or other parameters. The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is inadequate for an 8-parameter tool. The description adds virtually no semantic value for 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Sheypoor listings and auto-paginate' with the specific resource (listings) and behavior (auto-pagination). It also differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning 'all/many results', implying it is distinct from a single-page search. The verb 'Search' plus the pagination scope makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants all or many results', providing a clear condition for when to choose this tool. However, it does not name the alternative sibling 'search_listings' or state when NOT to use it, which would be stronger guidance. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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