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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses only the price per call and the generic result type; it does not say whether the overlay is a risk rating, what data source or geometry it uses, whether results are cached, or what limitations apply.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the price as a separate standalone sentence. It has no filler, but the brevity comes at the expense of parameter explanation and usage context, so it is efficient rather than exemplary.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter and an output schema are provided, so the short purpose statement is close to sufficient for invoking it. However, the description lacks sibling-selection guidance and any explanation of gnaf_id, which leaves an agent uncertain when choosing among the many properties_risks_* and properties_surroundings_public_housing variants.

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 provides zero description coverage for gnaf_id, and the description does not name or explain the parameter. 'Near the parcel' only indirectly implies that gnaf_id identifies the parcel, leaving the agent without format details, validity requirements, or how the parameter affects the overlay output.

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 a specific output: a public-housing concentration overlay near the parcel. This identifies the resource and scope clearly enough, though 'overlay' is used as a noun and there is no explicit verb or sibling comparison to fully distinguish it from properties_surroundings_public_housing or properties_risks_all.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like properties_risks_all or properties_surroundings_public_housing, nor any conditions that would make this the right choice. Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'near the parcel'.

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