search_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: badge filters apply 'AFTER parsing over up to 3 result pages,' and that these filters 'can express things Zameen's own UI cannot.' It also mentions the return format ('normalized JSON cards'). This gives an agent useful insight into pagination and post-processing behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but for a search tool that is implied. The disclosure is solid but not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. It uses line breaks to separate parameter groups (cities, purpose, property_type, badge filters, native filters) and includes a concrete example. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is long enough to be informative but stays efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, complex filtering logic, and a multi-page parse behavior), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the exact semantics of most parameters, distinguishes between filter types, notes the pagination limit, and provides an example. The output schema exists, so detailed return formatting is not required. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from calling this tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: it lists example city names, states allowed values for purpose ('sale|rent') and property_type ('homes|houses|flats|plots|commercial|rooms'), distinguishes badge filters (verified_only, agent_tier, exclude_promoted, max_price_pkr) from native filters (min_beds, min_area_marla, keywords, sort), and provides an example with all parameters. This is exceptional parameter documentation given the schema provides no 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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Search Zameen.com property listings and return normalized JSON cards.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_listing_details and list_supported_cities by specifying it is a search operation. The description also provides detailed search parameters and an example, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining which filters are 'native site filters' versus 'badge filters' that apply after parsing, and gives a concrete example call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of its siblings (e.g., 'use this to search, use get_listing_details for a specific listing'). The context is implied but not explicitly spelled out, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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