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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool returns limitations and capability gaps ('which categories can never be priced', 'honest answer about what we cannot do'). 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output and followed by an actionable usage rule. Every phrase earns its place; no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 simple, one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what data is returned, the inherent limitation report, and the recommended call context. It does not describe the exact output format, but that is a minor gap given how self-contained the tool is.

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% for the single country parameter, and the description only indirectly references it as 'a market' without clarifying the enum values or default. The schema itself carries the enum and default, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 exactly what the tool reports—sold-price data coverage per category for a market and categories that can never be priced. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling comps tools like get_sold_comps or get_price_trend, which return actual comps data rather than coverage.

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 explicitly tells an agent when to call the tool: 'Check this before building on the comps tools.' It also frames the tool as the preflight/feasibility gate versus using the comps tools themselves, so the decision between this and siblings is stated rather than left to inference.

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