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

The description discloses the record scope (Sold + For Sale) and the ordering (most-recent first), and adds the cost warning. With no annotations, the description carries behavioral responsibility, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, empty-result behavior, or how "All" might be bounded. Still, the core behavior is stated.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the primary behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by a clearly formatted cost note. Every word earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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 dozens of siblings and no annotations, this description is too minimal to be fully actionable. It omits parameter context and usage differentiation, although the output schema exists and partially compensates by documenting the response structure.

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 description provides no meaning for gnaf_id beyond what the schema already shows. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's format, role, or how to obtain it, but it does not.

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 the tool's resource: all Sold + For Sale records, most-recent first. It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like properties_sale_history_latest and properties_rent_history by emphasizing "All" and "Sold + For Sale", though it lacks an explicit verb like "returns".

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only implies that this is for retrieving full sale history, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection among many siblings.

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