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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds methodological context—local rental comparables, market context, investment metrics—but doesn't detail data sources, freshness, or failure conditions, so it only partially supplements the annotations.

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 action and scope, followed by a use-when trigger. No wasted words or redundancy—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 tool with 11 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers purpose and domain but leaves parameter semantics unaddressed. The presence of an output schema and read-only annotations reduces the burden on return-value and safety documentation, yet the missing parameter guidance is a real gap.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only names output dimensions (rental, yield, price-position, operating-cost) and says nothing about how inputs like governorate, area, propertyType, sizeSqm, or the optional maintenance/service-charge parameters affect the analysis. The description adds almost no meaning beyond what the bare parameter names already imply.

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 ('Analyze') plus a resource ('Oman residential property') and lists concrete analysis dimensions: rental, yield, price-position, operating-cost. The 'Oman-specific' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling analyze_property, and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear 'Use when...' clause that identifies eligible scenarios: Oman-specific rental, yield, price-position or operating-cost analysis. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage trigger is concrete enough to route an agent correctly in most cases.

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