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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the authoritative source (notarial deeds, official registry) and the shape of the return (median per m², IQR, typical total price/area, room breakdown, trend, recent transactions). No auth or rate-limit notes, but the return disclosure is genuinely useful.

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-loaded with the substantive capability and return contents in one dense sentence, followed by a compact place-format primer. No filler. The trailing 'place:' fragment is slightly list-like but earns its place by disambiguating the required input syntax.

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 9-parameter, 1-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, return contents, and the tricky required parameter's syntax. Enum meanings (kind, market) and defaults live in the schema, which is at 100% coverage, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema for the required 'place' parameter by giving concrete accepted formats ("Poznań, Garbary 10", "Kraków, Długa", "Swarzędz", "lat,lon"), which is the highest-value parameter guidance an agent needs here.

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 (actual sale prices of flats, houses, plots) with a named data source (notarial deeds / Rejestr Cen Nieruchomości) and geography (Poland). An agent can distinguish this from find_address and data_sources without opening a 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?

The description implies usage (you have a location, you want transaction prices), and the place-format examples imply the required input. However, it never states when to prefer this over find_address or data_sources, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but no explicit routing.

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