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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that figures derive from recorded sales over a bounded historical window, hinting at data-recency limits, but says nothing about empty/sparse results, latency, or how the radius cap behaves in practice.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the returned metrics before the breakdown dimensions. The trailing phrase 'over the last years of data' is slightly imprecise, but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 must carry the return-value burden and does reasonably well: it states the metrics and the groupings returned. It stops short of describing result shape (counts, per-type/per-year nesting) or behavior when no sales are recorded in the radius, which is the main remaining gap for a zero-required-parameter aggregate query.

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% and every parameter (lat/lng, place, address, type, years, radius_m) is already documented with defaults and bounds in the schema. The description's 'within a radius' and 'per property type and per year' merely echo those parameters, adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema.

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 names the concrete returned metrics (median sale price and price per m²) and the aggregation axes (overall, per property type, per year), which is far more specific than the title's vague 'prices around a place'. It does not however differentiate itself from close siblings such as street_prices, recent_sales or sales_at_address, which also concern recorded sales.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling list contains three overlapping sales tools (recent_sales, sales_at_address, street_prices). The only implicit cue is 'within a radius', leaving the agent to infer that this is the aggregated-statistics variant rather than the raw-listing variant.

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