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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (amounts in euros; conditional outputs such as rent/yield with an apartment plus area, and loan plus monthly payment with a mortgage), but discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, or precision/rounding behavior beyond the schema.

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-loads the resource definition in the first sentence before listing components, and the second sentence covers conditional outputs. It is somewhat run-on and the long chain of Bulgarian example queries makes it longer than needed, but no sentence is purely filler.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately frames the computation's inputs and conditions (mortgage, apartment with area, seller tax basis). The main omission is explicit discrimination from realistimo_estimate_price when a user asks about property figures.

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 every one of the 15 parameters is already documented, and the description largely restates the same content (e.g. mortgage adds bank fees, area enables rent/yield, location affects the local tax). It adds only the global note that amounts are in euros, which is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise resource and scope: extra transaction costs of buying/selling property in Bulgaria, and enumerates the concrete components (notary fee, registration, local acquisition tax, broker commission, seller's income tax, mortgage fees). This is clearly distinct from siblings like realistimo_estimate_price and realistimo_market_stats, which address price and market data rather than transaction costs.

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?

Provides concrete trigger utterances in Bulgarian („колко струва покупката/продажбата", „нотариални такси", „колко пари ми трябват за апартамент за 120 000 евро") that make the intended usage unambiguous. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or explicitly route the agent to a sibling such as realistimo_estimate_price.

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