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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: data provenance (/ceny/), that aggregates are dated, that sample sizes accompany the medians, the listing-vs-transaction distinction, and a CC BY 4.0 license note.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentence is information-dense, but the closing English sentence ('Dated asking-price aggregates, not transaction prices') merely restates content already present in the Russian text, and the whole definition is presented bilingually. The duplication costs it conciseness without adding new 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 compensates by explaining what the response contains — medians, ranges, and sample sizes — which is exactly what an agent needs. A single optional parameter plus complete annotations means little else is required; only the sibling-routing gap remains.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including slug and Cyrillic/English examples. The description mentions 'districts' as a slicing dimension, which lightly corroborates the parameter, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific resource (asking-price aggregates for Phuket apartments/condos) with verb-like specificity, plus granularity (medians, ranges, sample size) and slicing dimensions (bedrooms, budgets, districts). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_condo_assessment, so sibling differentiation is missing, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 'asking prices, not transaction prices' caveat implies the appropriate use case (market-listing analysis rather than sold-price analysis), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as get_condo_assessment, so usage is only inferred.

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