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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the source, that the data is from current listings, and that it's not official market stats. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, though for a read-only statistics tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is two concise sentences plus a key note, all front-loaded with the main action and usage examples. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description adequately states what it returns (median price and price per m²). It could specify the output format or units, but for a statistics tool with three parameters and clear sibling differentiation, it is largely complete.

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 description adds context for 'city' (optional) and 'propertyCategory' (examples for land and apartments) but does not explain the 'transactionType' parameter. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented 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 explicitly states that the tool returns median price and price per m² for property types and optionally by city, using actual listings from trazimstan.hr. It provides specific use-case examples and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (which deal with individual listings or searches).

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 gives example queries and an important caveat (not official statistics, mention sample size). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for different needs.

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