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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description adds the default radius of 500 m plus the fact that the data is 'live' asking prices. It says nothing about freshness, latency, or empty-area behavior when no listings fall in the circle, which matters for a radius query.

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 payload information is front-loaded in the first clause and the usage rule follows immediately, so the agent hits the important content first. The trailing Russian tagline 'Цены вокруг точки' is a pure duplicate of the English purpose and is the only wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned statistics and mentions the street names, which is what an agent needs to judge relevance. The only real gap is the absence of any note on what happens when the circle contains no listings.

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 carry the load, and it does more than the schema: it explains that radiusM is a distance in meters around a point and that its default is 500 m. lat/lng are described only implicitly as 'a point' and via the geocoding hint, leaving their coordinate convention unstated.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Live asking-price stats for all listings within radiusM of a point' — and then enumerates the actual metrics (median $/m², p25–p75, new vs resale, days on market, price cuts, streets). That enumeration makes it easy to distinguish from get_market_overview and get_district, which are broader-scope siblings.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger phrase, 'how much near X', plus an explicit prerequisite ordering: geocode X first. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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