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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the description is not required to re-state safety. It adds real context beyond them: the response aggregates multiple independent sources with dates and confidence, includes oracle feed freshness and onchain/usable prices, and explains missing prices via a stated reason. Auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior for unknown slugs remain unstated.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long enumeration is dense but each listed item is a distinct data source an agent needs to know is returned. Only the closing 'suggests no price' sentence is arguably padding, though it does set a decision boundary.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, down to oracle state fields and missing-price reasons. What is missing for a two-parameter, zero-required tool is how to choose between slug and tokenId and what happens on a bad identifier.

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 100% and both parameters (slug, tokenId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameters and notably does not clarify that neither is required or whether the two are alternatives for identifying the same property, which is the one semantic gap an agent would care about.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve every valuation value the Fabrica API holds for a property, and it enumerates the distinct sources (estimate, Fabrica AVM, Prycd, county assessor, DeFi pool signed valuations, oracle state, report link). That enumeration effectively separates it from siblings like get_land_property or get_fabrica_loan_book, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer that this is the tool for provenance-bearing valuation data and that pricing/borrowing decisions belong elsewhere. The closing clause 'it suggests no price' hints at a boundary but names no alternative tool or precondition, so there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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