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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: results are bounded, carry source dates, and can surface explicit unknown states, which tells the agent to expect gaps rather than infer missing data.

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 front-loaded sentence with qualifiers packed efficiently; nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the definition only needs to frame the data's nature, which it does. The remaining gap is sibling routing for a family of property/commune tools.

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%, so both parameters (commune, locale) and the quarter-vs-commune caveat are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the structured fields, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Get') and resource ('property context for a commune'), and qualifies it as bounded, source-backed, and unknown-state-aware. The exact data domain (prices, yields, market stats) is left implicit, so an agent knows the shape but not the content of what comes back.

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 statement of when to call this versus siblings such as get_price_estimate, get_town_agencies, or resolve_location, which all touch commune/property context. The only scoping cue ('bounded') is not an explicit when/when-not rule.

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