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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing what the result contains ('price + date') and what it deliberately omits ('no party names'). This is valuable transparency for an agent deciding whether the tool satisfies a user request.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads the operation, scope, and output shape; the second adds practical use cases. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (price + date, no party names), the input source (account id), and the intended applications. The schema handles parameter coverage details, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The main description only restates the 'by account id' usage and does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides for state coverage and account_id sourcing. No extra semantic value is contributed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly defined resource ('recorded sale history') with explicit scope ('for one parcel by account id'). It further specifies the content ('price + date, no party names'), which distinguishes it from parcel details or value-history tools. The use-case clause adds clarity without blurring the core purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for valuation, appreciation, and comp analysis') and the schema parameter description instructs that account_id comes from parcel_search, implying a precursor step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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