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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the data source (Thai Treasury Department), the unit (THB/m²), and a clear warning that these are statutory assessed values, not market prices — an important interpretive caveat.

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 unit, then constraints, then search axes — a good order. The trailing English sentence 'Official statutory assessment rates, not market prices' is a near-duplicate of the opening line, a minor redundancy that bilingual delivery partly excuses.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: min, median, max across residential categories plus a record count. Combined with the data provenance and the non-market caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the district values and the bilingual matching note. The description repeats the same district names and search facets, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: official statutory assessment rates (THB/m²) from the Thai Treasury Department, scoped to Phuket condominiums. It explicitly contrasts itself with market pricing, which separates it from the sibling get_asking_prices without the agent opening either 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?

The line 'Это не рыночная цена / not market prices' effectively signals when this tool is the right one versus a price-lookup sibling, and it names the supported search axes (Thai name or condominium_id, and amphoe). It never names the alternative tool explicitly, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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