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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the return payload shape (date, price, size, type), which is genuinely useful because no output schema exists, but says nothing about record recency bounds beyond 'recent' or about ordering/cap behavior.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, with no padding. It is efficiently written, though terse enough that it leans on the schema for most context.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and return fields but not the limit/months semantics or how 'recent' is bounded. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 60%, and the description only gestures at one parameter ('in the segment'), adding no syntax or format detail. The schema already documents area, segment, and building, while limit and months are left to their own defaults and bounds.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pair — 'Recent registered sales' — plus the four returned fields (date, price, size, type), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish this from overlapping siblings such as check_price, estimate_rent, or get_market_trend.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With five sibling tools that plausibly return price/market data, the agent has to guess whether this is the comparables tool or whether check_price/estimate_rent supersedes it.

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