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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: out-of-scope cities return supported=false, the need to surface scopeMessage, and the requirement to always surface the disclaimer field when returning livability/investment grade. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent handle edge cases.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, then usage trigger, then edge-case handling, then a mandatory caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant wording or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns, when to invoke it, how to handle unsupported cities, and an important user-facing requirement (disclaimer). It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by specifying that city must be Coimbatore or Chennai (not just any Indian city) and that locality is a neighborhood within those cities. This clarifies the expected values beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated insights for a locality'), and enumerates the exact output components (avg price, supply count, demand pulse, livability/investment grade, etc.). It clearly scopes to Coimbatore or Chennai localities, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_localities or search_properties by its focus on single-locality insights.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user asks "what is X locality like" about a neighborhood in either city.' It also provides handling for out-of-scope cities (supported=false, surface scopeMessage). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, though the trigger phrasing implicitly differentiates it.

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