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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the underlying source (Ejari contracts) and the 12-month freshness window, which affect how current the figure is. It stops short of explaining aggregation or the meaning of the trailing 'with n' fragment.

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 definition is short and the scope statement is front-loaded, but the trailing fragment 'with n' is malformed or truncated and reads as dangling text, costing clarity without adding information.

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 no output schema, the description does carry some burden, and it does signal the return shape (a rent range) and its temporal scope. However, it never clarifies what the range represents (min/max, percentiles), sample size, or the dangling 'with n', which are the details an agent would need to interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented, including examples and cross-references to list_areas and get_area_snapshot. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope — a rent range derived from new Ejari contracts registered in the last 12 months — so an agent knows this returns observed rental pricing, not a listing price. It is a noun phrase with no verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like check_price or get_comparables.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as check_price or get_comparables, both of which plausibly overlap with estimating rent. The agent must infer positioning from the name alone.

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