Search Homechecker guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered by structure. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting it returns 'professionally authored' guidance and clarifying it does not assess actual properties — which reveals it's a knowledge retrieval tool rather than an evaluator. This is meaningful value beyond annotations, though it doesn't describe return format or ordering.

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, usage in the second, and a critical limitation in the third. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a search/retrieval tool with six optional filters plus one required query, the description effectively communicates when to use it and its fundamental limitation. The lack of an output schema and the large number of optional parameters make full completeness impossible without more param documentation, but the description covers the core decision points well enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 low (29%), with only query and jurisdiction having descriptions. The description adds context that query is a 'natural-language question' and clarifies it's general guidance, but doesn't elaborate on era, limit, cluster, buyingStage, or propertyType semantics beyond what the schema enum provides for cluster. The description's guidance about what question types it handles partially compensates, providing a baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search professionally authored Australian homebuyer guidance') and clearly scopes the domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it handles general property/inspection/disclosure questions and notably clarifies 'It does not assess an actual property' — a key differentiator from property-specific tools.

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 lists specific question categories (property, inspection, disclosure, apartment, condition, maintenance, era, buying-process) giving clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, but the 'does not assess an actual property' exclusion is a strong implicit rejection for those needing property-level assessment, and individual parameters (cluster, jurisdiction) add contextual guidance.

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