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

Goes well past the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the data source (Ejari contracts, 12-month window), the segmentation (per bedroom where enough contracts resolve), and the confidence gate: no verdict when fewer than 5 contracts back it. That threshold and the legal basis for the cap are exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret a null result.

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 user question, then the method, then the invocation constraints in three dense sentences with no filler. The no-verdict rule and the sibling handoff are each stated once and earn their place.

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 five-parameter analytical tool with no output schema, the description covers the computation, the sample-size requirement, and where the slugs come from. It does not sketch what a result contains (comparison range, slab band, per-bedroom breakdown), so an agent knows what will be computed but not the shape of the answer.

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 60%: bedrooms and the two AED amounts are documented in-schema, but communitySlug and buildingSlug are not — the description compensates by stating they come from search_locations. It also adds combinatorial meaning the schema lacks, namely that quotedAnnualAed and currentAnnualAed are alternatives or can be combined.

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 question and the mechanism: compares a quoted annual rent against registered Ejari contracts in the same building over 12 months and estimates the renewal cap under Decree 43 of 2013. Reading it makes clear this is the rental counterpart to check_asking_price, without needing to open the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to pass quotedAnnualAed, currentAnnualAed, or both, which tells the agent which parameters select which analysis. It also routes the agent to search_locations for the required slug pair. It stops short of naming when to prefer compare_buy_vs_rent or check_asking_price instead, so no explicit exclusion.

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