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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already declared, the description still adds substantial behavior: a polite one-request-at-a-time cached access model, include_history costing one extra request and a longer result, truncation semantics (offers_returned, offers_omitted, truncated, offers_total including archived), and the STOP-error protocol. It also warns that two price universes (asking vs. RCN transaction) must not be mixed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage before the limits and result shape, and nearly every sentence carries operational value. It is on the long side, and the exhaustive result-shape listing plus the eight-tool price-taxonomy boilerplate overlaps with the existing output schema and shared context.

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 filtered read with three params, the description covers provenance of the slug, how to present URLs, pagination/truncation flags, optional price history cost, cross-tool price-type disambiguation, and a failure protocol. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret the response is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the 0–200 range, default 20, and the cost of include_history. The description reinforces limit/history behavior and slug provenance but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

Names the resource precisely (an investment/developer project) and enumerates what it carries: city, street, coordinates, developer, average prices of active offers, and the offer list. It also differentiates from siblings explicitly — 'For a single offer use deweloperuch_get_offer' and the slug source is deweloperuch_search_investments.

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?

States the use case ('see the flats of one project'), names the alternative for a single offer, and tells the agent not to raise the limit unnecessarily on large investments. It also states exactly what to do when a result is a STOP error: stop, no retries, no workarounds, inform the user.

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