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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the 'latest recorded' recency framing and the returned field set, which is useful, but it omits geographic coverage limits, ordering guarantees, and pagination behavior.

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 compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the returned fields relegated to a parenthetical. Nothing is padded, though the field list is a dense enumeration that does little to aid tool selection.

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 returned-field enumeration partially compensates by telling the agent what comes back. But it omits the geographic scope (the schema's "in France" hint suggests a country limit), result ordering aside from 'latest', and how results behave when both coordinates and place are supplied — all relevant for a 9-parameter spatial lookup.

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% across all 9 parameters, so lat/lng/place/address precedence, defaults, and limits are all documented in the schema. The parenthetical field list adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+scope: "latest recorded sales within a radius." An agent immediately knows it returns recent transactions near a point. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like sales_at_address, street_prices, or property_prices, which cover overlapping ground.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the other seven sales/price tools, no prerequisite requirements, and no exclusions. The radius framing implies a spatial lookup, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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