search_listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively states that results include {GIN} scores and that agent contact details are never returned, which is a meaningful privacy constraint beyond the schema. It does not disclose pagination/sorting behavior, but the core safety and output traits are covered.

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 composed of two terse, information-dense sentences. The first immediately names the tool's action and scope; the second delivers the return format and a key constraint. No filler or redundancy exists, and the most important action verb is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately orients an agent: it defines the domain, the searchable fields, and the return payload (prices and GIN scores). It falls short of explaining how limit and pagination behave, and does not clarify how results are ranked, which would be useful for an agent choosing between this and semantic_search. Still, for a search tool, it is largely complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptive comments for all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level value beyond restating the filter dimensions (city, typology, price, rooms) already explicitly listed in the schema. It does not introduce new meaning like default behavior or parameter interdependencies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 starts with the verb 'Search' and clearly specifies the resource ('AI-graded Moroccan luxury listings') plus the search dimensions (city, typology, price, rooms, free-text query). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing (single listing lookup) and get_gin_score (score-specific), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 conveys clear usage context: it is a listing search tool with structured filters and free-text search. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over semantic_search or get_listing, nor does it note exclusions (e.g., 'use semantic_search for pure relevance ranking'). The intent is clear enough for an agent to select it for listing discovery.

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