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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral caveats: the 12-month median window, partial rent coverage due to Ejari records lacking building names, and exclusion of buildings with fewer than 5 records. This materially helps the agent set expectations.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each caveat sentence earns its place by explaining data limitations and filtering rules.

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?

The description covers scope, metrics, ordering, and data caveats, which is enough for correct tool selection and invocation. It does not describe the exact return shape, but with no output schema the title and core sentence sufficiently imply a ranked list of buildings.

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 only 25%, but the description adds meaning for 'metric' (sale price vs annual rent) and 'order' (cheapest/most expensive). 'communitySlug' is already explained in the schema, while 'limit' remains schema-only, so the compensation is strong but not complete.

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 states a specific verb ('rank') and resource ('buildings in one community'), and clarifies the exact question it answers: 'cheapest/most expensive buildings in X'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rank_communities or get_building_stats.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context by mapping the tool to a specific user question. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls 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.