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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (official open data), the 90-day lag behavior for NYC and Cook, and the deliberate omission of buyer/seller names. It omits any pagination behavior despite a page parameter, which is the only material gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and squeezed into a dense but readable paragraph. Every clause carries real information, though the parenthetical and inline formatting make it slightly heavy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains what comes back (median price, counts by ZIP, data-through date). Combined with the area values and zip format, this is nearly complete for a 3-param tool, missing only pagination guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully covers `area` by listing its valid values and defines `zip_code` as 5-digit, but leaves the `page` parameter entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: recently sold properties from official open data, with the returned fields (address, sale date, price) and the recency window (last 90 days each source published). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like property_history_lookup or tax_sale_search.

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 implies usage through the geography enumeration and data-freshness caveat, giving good context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly says when to choose it over alternatives such as property_history_lookup, and no exclusion conditions are stated.

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