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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds genuine scope context beyond that: price/yield are returned only 'where Realistimo publishes them', and metro/kindergarten detail is limited to Sofia квартали — useful boundaries an agent couldn't infer from 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?

One dense but front-loaded sentence lists what the profile contains, followed by a compact quoted example block. No filler, though the opening sentence is long enough that it borders on overload.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers data sources, conditional availability, and geographic scope limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 (location, language) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail about the location string or language enum, so the schema carries the load — the correct baseline of 3.

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: a 'profile of a place in Bulgaria' and enumerates exactly what it contains (location description, sale/rent counts, median asking price, rental yield, plus metro/kindergartens for Sofia квартали). This clearly separates it from aggregate siblings like market_stats or market_index, though it never names an alternative 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?

Provides concrete natural-language usage examples ('какъв квартал е Лозенец', 'добре ли е да се живее в Младост') that pin down the intended moment to call it. It gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternative tools, so it stops 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.