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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the call cost (4¢) and the core query behavior, but leaves 'small radius' and 'recent' undefined and says nothing about result limits, data coverage, or side effects.

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, front-loaded with the primary behavior and followed by the cost. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition is mostly adequate, but it leaves 'small radius' and 'recent' imprecise and provides no guidance on where to obtain a valid gnaf_id. It is not severely incomplete, but it has clear gaps.

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, its format, or how to obtain it. The phrase 'subject parcel' only weakly implies that gnaf_id identifies the parcel, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 the tool returns recent comparable sales in a small radius around the subject parcel, giving a clear resource and scope. This differentiates it from siblings like properties_comparables_all and properties_comparables_cma_comp_set, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many comparable-sales siblings (e.g., properties_comparables_all, cma_comp_set, sale_history) or when not to use it. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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