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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile, and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: outputs always include period and provenance, conflicting sources yield a withheld value rather than a number, and withheld values must not be backfilled from elsewhere. It also discloses the data's third-party compiled nature and its non-appraisal scope.

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 resource and payload, then the usage rules, which is the right order. It is long for a one-parameter tool and the closing disclaimer chains three near-synonymous negations ('not an appraisal, not a valuation...'), which is mild redundancy rather than dead weight.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns — it does so by specifying that every figure ships with its period and reporting source and that conflicting sources return a disagreement marker. Nothing an agent needs to call or faithfully report this tool is missing.

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% and the single county parameter is fully documented (enum slugs plus 'Omit for statewide figures plus the list of counties'). The description's 'Pass no argument for statewide figures and the list of counties' merely restates the schema and adds no new syntax or semantics, so the 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 names a specific resource (twelve Florida counties) and enumerates exactly what comes back: median sale prices, inventory, days on market and insurance figures. It also distinguishes itself from valuation/appraisal tools and from the data-compilation siblings, so an agent can tell what this is without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete operational rules for use: always carry the period and source when quoting, never restate year-over-year as month-over-month, do not substitute figures where sources disagree, and pass no argument for statewide data. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. search_mls) for per-property lookups, so the when-not-to-use case is only implied.

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