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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description nevertheless adds real behavioral context by guaranteeing provenance separation between observed data and the source's self-reported history, and by explicitly stating the limitation 'never infers an earlier price.' It does not cover ordering, pagination, or volume of returned history.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core payload before the provenance and inference caveats; each sentence carries distinct information with no filler. Slightly compressed but appropriately sized for the tool.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return structure (observed vs source-reported vs cumulative), which is the most important missing piece and is handled well. It falls short on the two-ID parameter choice and on when this tool beats get_property_details.

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?

Two ID parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions listing_id or property_id at all — not which to supply, whether both are accepted, nor how they relate. With required=0 the agent has no guidance on selection, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Price and status history for a property') and enumerates the concrete payload components: observed history with dates, detected changes, source-reported history, cumulative change. It implicitly separates itself from get_property_details (current state) but never names a sibling to make the routing explicit.

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 only implied — an agent can infer 'use this when you need price/status changes over time' — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to get_property_details or compare_properties for adjacent needs. Adequate but leaves the routing to inference.

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