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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the data limitation: values are index/yoy changes, not rupee prices, and no open series provides city-level rupee prices.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'INDIA.' scope marker followed by the sources and the key limitation. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 one-optional-parameter, annotation-covered read tool, this is nearly complete: it identifies the sources, coverage, and that output is yoy index change. With no output schema, a bit more on result shape or units would fully close the gap, but the essential call information is present.

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% and the single 'city' parameter is fully documented with an example and the empty-value behavior. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resources (RBI All-India House Price Index over 18 cities and NHB RESIDEX year-on-year change) and the country scope, so it is immediately distinguishable from the sibling house_prices_us/uk/au tools. An agent knows precisely what data this returns without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the country/data scope, and the sentence 'Indices only: no official open series gives rupee prices by city' usefully sets a when-not expectation about rupee prices. However, it never names an alternative or states the condition under which another tool (e.g. compare_states_in, stats_marche) should be chosen instead.

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