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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output type ('top comparable sales') without describing how the set is selected, ordering, limits, or any side effects. The price note is the only extra behavioral trait, but it is billing-related, not operational.

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 description is very short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds cost information, which is useful. However, it lacks necessary details, making brevity insufficient for a usable definition.

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 tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that isn't shown, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the parameter, nor does it clarify how this tool relates to the similar sibling tools. An agent could not determine when to call this tool or what input to provide.

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 description does not explain what gnaf_id means or what value to pass. The parameter is required and has a type, but the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the field name itself.

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 clearly states that the tool provides 'top comparable sales used to triangulate the subject property's value,' which conveys a specific resource and its purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like properties_comparables_all or properties_comparables_cma_single_comp, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling comparable-sales tools. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions that would make it the right choice.

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