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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, leaving safety/reporting traits to the description. The description discloses what will be returned (均价/行情/走势/指数/建议) and what will not be returned (成交明细、挂牌列表、配套星级), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention data freshness or limitations, but not enough to lower below 4.

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 longer than average but well-structured: main purpose first, then output indicators, exclusions, and examples. The list of indicators is dense but useful for setting expectations. No redundant filler; each section earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values don't need full description. The tool involves two parameters, and the description covers input constraints, output scope, exclusions, and typical queries comprehensively. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could specify data sources or update frequency.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying acceptable address forms (门牌、地标、路名、小区名、园区出入口), reiterating the China-only constraint, and providing concrete examples for both parameters in typical questions. This adds value beyond the schema's parameter 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 clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: query (查询) housing price/investment analysis for a location. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 房价/投资分析 and explicitly excluding transaction lists, listing names, and supporting facility ratings, which differentiates it from cbd_surrounding_amenity, cbd_surrounding_consumption, and related tools.

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?

The description gives detailed usage context: input must be a specific locatable point in China, not a city/district name, and it provides typical question phrasings. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but its scope and exclusions implicitly clarify when this tool is appropriate versus others.

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