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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds that results carry county, type and population. It says nothing about matching semantics (exact, prefix, fuzzy) or result caps/ordering, which materially affects how an agent interprets an ambiguous-name result set.

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 short sentences, zero padding; the what-is-returned clause comes first and the usage cue second. The 'Florești' example earns its place by making ambiguity concrete.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields is a strong compensation. The remaining gap is matching behavior — whether a partial or diacritic-variant name returns results — which an agent must guess.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents diacritics being optional. The description adds only that names may be ambiguous, which is context rather than parameter semantics, so 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 specific resource (Romanian localities) and operation (name matching), plus the returned fields (county, type, population). It is unmistakable against siblings like search_rentals or search_parking, which operate on entirely different domains.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition — use it when a name is ambiguous, with 'Florești' as a worked example. It does not state a when-not case or name an alternative, but no sibling tool overlaps this lookup, so there is nothing to exclude.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about what is returned and why full-text detail matters, though it omits format and error behavior details.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and followed by the decision-relevant usage rule. No wasted wording.

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 simple one-parameter read-only detail tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description supplies enough about return contents and when to call it. No output schema exists, but the description still names the key returned information.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that the URL must be from storia.ro, publi24.ro, or lajumate.ro and can come from search_rentals. The description adds no URL-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific resource and contents: full description, photos, and extracted facts for one ad. Clearly distinguishes a single-listing detail lookup from bulk search siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Gives a clear usage trigger: 'Use it before recommending a listing,' and explains why by noting heating and parking are often only in the full text. No explicit exclusions or sibling names, but the context is strong.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source domain and geographic scope, but says nothing about result format, pagination, sorting, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted text and the key scope is front-loaded. It is concise but slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

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 four-parameter search tool with a decent schema and annotations, the description covers the core resource and geography. It still leaves usage decisions and result behavior implicit, which matters when three sibling tools could be candidates.

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 75%: city, county, and max_price are documented, and only limit lacks a schema description. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating that city is a Romanian locality, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (parking spots and garages for rent) and a specific geographic scope (Romanian locality, storia.ro). It is clearly narrower than the sibling search_rentals, though it omits an explicit verb and does not directly address the other siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of search_rentals, get_listing_details, or find_locality. The only implicit usage signal is the Romanian locality requirement, which does not help an agent choose between siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and open-world, so the description is free to add real value — and it does: results are de-duplicated across three live sources, facts are pre-extracted (price in EUR, rooms, surface, heating, parking), and per-site status is returned, implying partial-source failures are visible. It does not mention latency or rate-limit behavior beyond the schema's 'more = slower' note.

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 filler, front-loaded with source and scope before the return contract. Each clause carries distinct information (sources, de-duplication, extracted fields, links, per-site status).

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 14-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of characterizing what comes back (de-duplicated records with extracted facts and source links, plus per-site status). What remains unstated is how partial site failures surface and how limit interacts with per-site paging, though the schema covers the latter.

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 every one of the 14 parameters is already documented, including non-obvious ones like owner_only's site-coverage caveat and parking statuses. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond confirming that prices are in EUR and that parking/heating are extracted facts; 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 specific verb+resource (search apartments for rent) with an explicit geographic scope (a Romanian locality) and named sources (storia.ro, publi24.ro, lajumate.ro), plus the return shape. It does not name any sibling, so the distinction from get_listing_details or search_parking must be inferred from the nouns alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you what it returns, which signals 'use this for discovery, then get_listing_details for a full ad', but never says so or states exclusions. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer the workflow from sibling names.

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