List properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include key figures, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core listing behavior front-loaded and the filter noted second. No filler, though the parenthetical field list could be trimmed since it mirrors the return data.

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 does list the fields returned, which helps. But it omits pagination/result-size behavior and never mentions the status filter, so an agent is left guessing about result scope.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the search behavior ('matched against address/postcode') but adds nothing for the status parameter, 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?

States a clear verb (list) and resource (properties) and even enumerates the returned key figures (address, postcode, value, rent, mortgage). It reads as a portfolio-wide listing, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like find_property or get_property, which an agent must otherwise infer.

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 implies usage via 'Optionally filter by free text matched against address/postcode,' giving the agent a sense of when to use the search parameter. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus find_property/get_property, and never mentions the status filter or any exclusion.

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