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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds useful behavioral facts: official recorded data, current-calendar-year coverage, and a required date range. It does not describe pagination, total counts, or response shape, but the annotation safety profile reduces that burden.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and content; the second states coverage and the mandatory input. Every sentence 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 7-parameter read-only tool, the essential invocation constraints are present: source, required date range, annual coverage, and representative output fields. However, there is no output schema and the description only partially sketches the return shape; it also does not contrast with sibling tools or explain how to use property_type_id effectively. These gaps make it adequate but not complete.

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 input schema already documents all 7 parameters including date format, sorting, limits, offsets, and defaults. The description enumerates output fields rather than input parameters, adding little to parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the resource: official Dubai Land Department property valuations, including the key fields such as appraised total value, area, sub-type, and valuation date. The verb is implicit ('recorded' rather than 'search' or 'retrieve') and it does not name sibling tools, but the 'valuations' subject is specific enough to distinguish it from dld_search_transactions, dld_search_lands, and similar siblings.

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 concrete usage context: coverage is limited to the current calendar year and a date range is required, which tells the agent how to bound a query. It does not explicitly compare against alternative dld_search_* tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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