search_secondary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real context: results link to the korter listing where contact happens, no seller identities are stored, freshness is exposed via actualize_staleness_days, and empty-district results name a source to refresh. Missing rate/auth/reversibility notes, but the safety-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then caveats. The 'actualize_staleness_days' sentence is a needed data-point but slightly cryptic without an output schema.

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?

No output schema, so the description usefully explains result shape (korter link, freshness field, refresh hint). However, with 11 loosely documented parameters and no annotations, coverage is only partial for correct invocation.

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 only 27% (3 of 11 params described) and the description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond noting district snapshot absence. City, rooms, price/area filters, and include_unavailable are undocumented in both places.

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: searching the secondary market (resale and rent) from tracked snapshots. The market scope implicitly separates it from search_projects, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied by 'search the secondary market,' and it clarifies that seller contact happens off-server. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative (e.g. search_projects, secondary_trends) guidance.

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