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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it discloses two real behavioral traits: the tool is aggregate-only (no per-ad data) and the k-anonymity-style suppression below 5 matching ads. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or freshness of the underlying ad data, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, efficiently front-loaded with what is computed before the suppression caveat. The only slack is the parenthetical Polish gloss of the same phrase, which duplicates meaning rather than adding it.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description supplies what the schema cannot: the aggregate-only nature, the minimum-sample suppression behavior, and the remediation path. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including radius_m, measure, rooms and area bounds is already documented in the schema. The description references radius_m and 'filters' generally but adds no format, default, or syntactic detail beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (aggregates) and resource (asking-rent statistics of rental ads) and enumerates the exact output measures (n, median, p25, p75). The spatial scope ('within radius_m of a point') makes the operation unambiguous, and no sibling tool in the set computes rent statistics, so no differentiation is required.

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?

'Aggregates only' tells the agent this returns summary statistics rather than individual listings, and the suppression rule gives an explicit when-not case ('if fewer than 5 ads match, the result is suppressed') plus remediation ('widen radius or relax filters'). It does not name a competing sibling, but none exists in this tool set, so the gap is minor.

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