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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the credit cost (10 credits/call), the underlying data coverage (DVF 2014–2025, annual cadence), and default date behavior. It stops short of describing pagination or output format limits.

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 purpose, then cleanly sectioned into REQUIRED / Optional / Returns / Example / Note / Cost. Every block is useful, though the Returns list is somewhat long and could be tightened.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description carries a lot of burden and handles it: it documents return structure, defaults, data-coverage limitations, and cost. A few parameters (radius_m, exclude_vefa, exclude_bulk_sales) are left entirely to the schema, but overall it is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it encodes the cross-parameter constraint ('at least one location filter') that the schema cannot express since required=0, explains defaults for granularity and date range, and gives a concrete example payload. This goes beyond the per-field schema text.

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 and resource: 'Analyze price evolution over time,' which clearly separates it from siblings like get_zonal_price_distribution (static distribution) or analyze_market_statistics (aggregate stats). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it competes with, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark for sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('essential for market timing and investment decisions'), the mandatory location-filter constraint, and a reliability caveat (use windows ≥ 12 months). It never names alternative tools to use instead, so no explicit exclusions are present, but the when-to-use context is well covered.

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