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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the non-obvious fact that results are a search-driven aggregate (not a listing-level read) and by enumerating the computed statistics, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded sentences that carry the purpose, the output contents and the filtering model, with no repetition. The trailing API path 'GET /properties/analytics' is near-redundant affordance information rather than agent-relevant guidance, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 33-parameter, zero-required aggregate tool with full schema coverage but no output schema, the description supplies the two things the structured data cannot: the aggregate nature of the response and the equivalence to search_listings filters. It omits only minor operational detail such as defaults for status/type and whether filters actually narrow the aggregate.

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% across 33 parameters, so the schema documents filter syntax, enums and defaults fully; the baseline is 3. The description's only semantic contribution is the equivalence claim ('same filters as simplyrets_search_listings'), which helps an agent transfer known filter semantics but adds no per-parameter detail.

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+resource (aggregate statistics over listings matched by a search) and enumerates exactly what is returned: total count, average price, bedrooms, baths, living area, lot size, year built, and counts per area. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling simplyrets_search_listings by positioning itself as the aggregate counterpart.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Use it for market summaries of a city, zip or price band') and ties filtering semantics to simplyrets_search_listings ('same filters as'), which tells the agent how to build input. It does not, however, contrast itself with the similarly named sibling simplyrets_get_listing_analytics, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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