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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the key selection behavior (highest dist_score) and the cost (10¢ per call), but it does not explain what happens when no comparable exists, what CMA means, or any prerequisites. The core behavior is present, so it is not a total failure.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the price is separated into a useful second sentence.

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 output schema covers the return shape, and the tool is simple, but the description omits input semantics and sibling routing. The price disclosure is helpful, yet an agent would need external context to understand gnaf_id and the CMA concept.

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 never mentions gnaf_id. The agent is left to infer that gnaf_id identifies the subject property, with no explanation of its format, source, or role in selecting the comparable.

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 identifies the tool's output: the single best comparable from the CMA set, selected by highest dist_score. This distinguishes it from the sibling properties_comparables_cma_comp_set, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves' and does not name the sibling directly.

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 phrase 'Single best comparable' implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose. It does not mention properties_comparables_cma_comp_set or other comparable tools as routing options.

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