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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so safety behavior is covered. The description does add useful context beyond that: results are 'bounded' and 'source-backed' with 'source dates,' and some values may be in 'unknown states,' which tells the agent to expect incomplete data. It stops short of describing coverage limits, staleness windows, or granularity.

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?

A single dense sentence with no padding, and the key qualifiers (bounded, source-backed, source dates, unknown states) are packed efficiently. It is well-formed, though the extreme density leaves no room for the routing guidance an agent would want.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the provenance/'unknown states' note covers the data-quality angle. The remaining gap is tool selection — nothing explains how this differs from the estimation and search tools it sits beside.

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 commune slug/name and locale enum (including the deprecated 'lb' alias) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes that context is per-commune, adding no format or resolution guidance beyond it — baseline 3.

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 (Get) and resource (bounded, source-backed property context) scoped to a commune, so an agent understands the intent immediately. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings such as get_price_estimate or search_vibe, which also return commune-level property information.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of when another tool (e.g. get_price_estimate, get_affordability) would be the better choice. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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