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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond these hints: 'source-dated live active-listing' clarifies data recency and source, while 'descriptive listing facts only' and the list of exclusions disclose what the output does not represent. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clear exclusions. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and comprehensive annotations. The description fully covers the tool's scope and limitations for a read-only comparison tool. It does not need to explain return values (output schema exists) and provides sufficient context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('type' with default and enum, 'cities' with 2-4 constraint and enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('Northern Cyprus cities') with a clear scope: 'asking-price aggregates across 2-4 cities.' It also explicitly states what it is not ('not transaction prices, valuation, forecast, ranking, or investment advice'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price_index or get_yield_estimate.

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 implies when to use the tool: when needing city-level asking-price aggregates. It also provides when-not guidance through exclusions ('not transaction prices, valuation, forecast, ranking, or investment advice'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like compare_properties, so it falls short of a 5.

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