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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses provenance ('gathered from published reports'), recency ('recent'), and geographic scope (African countries), plus the citation requirement, but says nothing about coverage limits, freshness windows, or failure modes. Decent but not rich.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler: scope and provenance first, usage trigger second, citation rule last. Fully front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 read-only knowledge-retrieval tool with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers what it returns (news/facts with named sources) and when to call it. The only real gap is that the undescribed 'question' parameter leaves input shaping to inference.

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 50%: 'country' is documented, 'question' is not. The description partially compensates by framing the expected input as a market or 'how does X work in <country>' question and implying country scoping, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that.

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 concrete resource (recent African real estate news and plain-language facts on buying, renting, property rules) sourced from published reports. It is clearly distinguishable from the property-listing siblings (get_property, search_properties, list_places), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use for market or "how does X work in <country>" questions,' plus an output-handling rule to always cite the named source. No when-not guidance or sibling comparison is offered, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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