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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds useful context about the underlying dataset (Zillow Research ZHVI + ZORI, metro/state level) and the presence of a refresh timestamp, but it does not discuss behavior such as staleness interpretation, update frequency, or any operational caveats.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the purpose and the exact metrics returned, and the second scopes the dataset and geographic granularity. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names all reported metrics, the data source, and the geographic levels. An agent can decide whether this tool covers its need and can interpret the response without further documentation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter meanings the description must supply. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description staying silent on parameters 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 opens with the verb 'Report' and a specific resource ('real-estate store coverage'), then enumerates four concrete metrics. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling data-query tools such as realestate_home_values, realestate_rents, and realestate_trend: they deliver values, while this one reports dataset coverage and freshness.

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 implies the tool is for checking data-store coverage, total data points, latest month, and refresh status rather than querying actual property values. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over the realestate_* siblings or mentions any exclusions, so the agent must infer the use case from the status-oriented phrasing.

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