search-properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are paginated and include property details, adverts, photos, and nearby stations. It also hints at a dependency on location-autocomplete for ID resolution. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or read-only nature, but 'search' implies non-mutating behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return content, then a practical tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 complex tool with 81 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the search capability and return payload. It covers filter categories and pagination, but does not detail parameter combinations (e.g., radius requires lat/lon), though the schema handles those details.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by advising to use location-autocomplete for city/department IDs, which directly informs parameters like includedCities and includedDepartments. This extra guidance goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Search French real estate properties' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates extensive filter categories. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-property (single property) and find-similar-properties by framing this as a general search tool. The return content (pagination, details, adverts, photos, nearby stations) further clarifies scope.

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 gives a clear usage context: searching properties with filters, and provides a prerequisite: 'Use location-autocomplete first to resolve city/department IDs.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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