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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the enrichment fields and the 30¢ cost per call, but it says nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, or how the latest matching listing is chosen. This is useful but not comprehensive.

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 crisp sentences: the first states the output, the second states the price. Every clause adds information, and the price is visually separated. There is no filler or redundant restating 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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core result and cost. It is incomplete on parameter semantics and usage selection, but it does not need to describe return values because an output schema exists. Overall, it is adequate but leaves key selection and input questions unanswered.

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 schema gives gnaf_id only a type, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It never defines gnaf_id or states that it is the parcel identifier for which neighbours should be returned. An agent must infer the parameter meaning from the tool name rather than from any explicit 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 clearly identifies the resource and result: adjoining-parcel neighbours, enriched with specific listing data. The noun-phrase style lacks an explicit imperative verb, but 'Adjoining-parcel neighbours' is unambiguous about what is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as properties_context_nearby_for_sale or properties_surroundings_parcels.

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 neighbouring-property alternatives. The price note is a cost signal, not a usage condition. An agent must infer intended use from the name and description alone.

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