search_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by revealing that badge filters apply after parsing over up to 3 result pages, that limit is clamped to 1..50 and echoed back in filters_applied, and that the output is normalized JSON cards. This is strong, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, accepted values, filter behavior, clamping behavior, and a complete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler or repetition.

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 12-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions and no annotations, the description provides enough guidance to call it correctly, including defaults, value examples, behavioral caveats, and a realistic invocation. The output schema exists, so return structure does not need to be spelled out in the description.

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, and it does. It explains purpose and property_type values, differentiates post-parsing badge filters from native filters, clarifies limit clamping, and provides a full example covering the major parameters. Nearly every parameter receives meaningful semantic context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Zameen.com property listings and return normalized JSON cards.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_listing_details or watch management, and the parameter guidance makes the search scope unmistakable.

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 concrete usage guidance: which city names to use, what purpose/property_type values are expected, and which filters are applied post-parsing versus native site filters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, but the context and purpose make the search use case clear.

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