emlakjet_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does real work: it discloses that min_price/max_price/min_m2 are NOT server-side filters but are applied to the fetched page, which is a crucial caveat that changes how an agent should interpret result counts. It also caps page at 1..50 and describes the returned summary. It does not cover failure modes for bad slugs or how many listings a page holds, so it is not exhaustive.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, then a compact per-parameter glossary follows with no filler sentences. It is dense and reads as one long run-on block rather than being broken by line or bullet structure, which costs it a point, but no clause is redundant.

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 nine-parameter, zero-annotation tool the description covers the essentials: semantics for every parameter, the client-side filtering caveat, the page bound, and return fields. However, there is genuine ambiguity left — whether filtered results still return a full page of twenty items, what happens on an unmatched city/district slug, and whether the site-reported 'total listings' reflects the description-level filters or the raw site search — all of which matter for correct result interpretation.

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% and the schema supplies only titles and defaults, so the description must compensate entirely — and it does: it enumerates valid values for listing_type and property_type, specifies slug format with examples for city and district, fixes the rooms format, gives units and currency for price/m², and bounds page. Every one of the nine parameters gets meaning that the schema does not provide.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search real-estate listings') and the parameter glossary makes it obvious this is the filter-based search entry point, distinct from emlakjet_listing_detail (single listing), emlakjet_list_districts (geography lookup) and emlakjet_price_stats (aggregates). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

When-to-use is only implied: the parameter list tells the agent this is the tool for filtered browsing, and the parenthetical '(optional, applied to the fetched page)' signals the post-fetch filtering behavior. There is no explicit statement of which sibling to reach for when the agent wants a single listing, a district list, or price statistics, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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