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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the description's real contribution is the scope constraint: results are always national and location/teryt are silently ignored. That is a meaningful behavioral caveat beyond the annotations. It does not describe the returned shape (bin edges vs counts) or how maxPrice truncates/affects binning, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the national-scope constraint is front-loaded before the routing advice. Every clause 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 four-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the ignored-filter trap, and fallback siblings — enough to invoke correctly. The only real gap is the shape of the returned histogram (bin boundaries, count field names), which an agent would need to interpret results.

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 the schema already labels location and teryt as 'Ignored: histogram is national', so the description largely reiterates that rather than adding new meaning. It also says nothing about bins or maxPrice semantics, leaving the schema to carry those. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — a national histogram of transactions per price range — plus a stated purpose ('overall price structure of the market'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_price_statistics and search_transactions, so the agent can separate it from siblings without reading any schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('overall price structure'), when-not (no location filter; location/teryt are ignored), and names the alternatives to use for a single place. This is the full when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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