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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by mentioning the source, the time window, the specific metric categories, and the returned URL. It is transparent enough, though it could mention coverage limitations or city support explicitly.

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?

The description is three compact sentences: what is returned, when to use it, and what the returned URL offers. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to consume.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this description is remarkably complete: it names the data categories, source, cadence, typical user questions, and the return-link meaning. It does not clarify why the city parameter is required or which city values are supported, which creates minor ambiguity.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The free-text description adds little semantic detail about the parameters themselves beyond referring to a zip code, and the city parameter's allowed values are left to the schema, which actually contains an enum/description mismatch.

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 clearly defines the tool as a neighborhood snapshot for a zip code, naming the exact contents: median asking rents by bedroom count and a 12-month crime summary. It is specific and easily distinguished from the sibling building, landlord, review, and search tools.

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 explicitly says to use the tool for 'what does rent cost in <area>' and 'is <area> safe' questions, which gives the agent clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or call out an alternative sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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