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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does disclose the data returned (asking rent figures plus bedroom-type breakdowns), which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about time period, snapshot recency, or coverage limits.

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?

One tight sentence with the data type and scope front-loaded and no filler. Its only shortfall is that the brevity leaves behavioral questions unanswered rather than that it wastes words.

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-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials but omits timeframe (current snapshot vs historical), the unit/currency of the figures, and how bedroom breakdowns are represented. Those gaps matter because no output schema documents the shape.

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% and the single 'city' parameter is already documented with its slug pattern and the list_covered_cities resolution instruction. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('asking rent statistics and bedroom breakdowns') scoped to a 'tracked city'. That separates it reasonably from siblings like get_rent_history (time series) and get_national_summary (national scope), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'for a tracked city' hints that only covered cities are valid, and the schema points at list_covered_cities for resolution, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use vs get_rent_history or get_national_summary guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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