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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the fixed 12-month window, the exact KPI set, and the inclusion of a data-freshness field so the agent knows the staleness of the 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?

Two short sentences: the payload first, the routing hint second. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant information (scope and KPI set) is front-loaded.

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 carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so by naming every KPI plus the freshness field. For a zero-param, read-only aggregate tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering options exist by describing the result as an unfiltered city-wide aggregate.

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 ('City-wide Dubai sales KPIs') and enumerates exactly what is returned (transaction count, total value, median price, median price per sqm, data freshness). The 'city-wide' qualifier plus the 12-month window clearly separates it from siblings like get_location_stats, get_building_stats, and get_price_history.

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?

'Good first call for broad questions' gives a clear when-to-use signal and positions it as the entry point among the ranking/stats siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for narrow questions (e.g., 'use get_location_stats for a single community'), so there are no stated exclusions.

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