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

Annotations already establish a safe, closed, read-only operation, so the description's main addition is the caveat that sample changes can affect market trends. That is useful context but vague—it doesn't say how the sample changes, whether history is restated, or what the default/lookback behavior is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint and a caveat. Nothing is padded, though the caveat sentence is slightly cryptic and could be sharper.

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 convey the return granularity ('daily' rent history) and the two scope options, which covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the unexplained `days` parameter and lack of any note on output shape or limits.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the undocumented parameter is `days`, whose meaning (lookback window vs. forward window, default) is never explained in the description. The one genuinely helpful parameter note ('exactly one of city or property_id') largely restates the schema's oneOf, so the description adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read daily asking rent history') plus the two supported scopes (a city or a property), which is enough for an agent to know what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_market_stats or get_national_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It states the selection constraint ('Supply exactly one of city or property_id'), but that rule is already encoded in the schema's oneOf. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_market_stats or get_national_summary, and no note on prerequisites such as resolving a city via list_covered_cities (which only appears in the schema).

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