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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context: results are coverage signals only (sample size, confidence), sorted by rent_sample_n descending, free to use, and experimental status. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured and concise: starts with experimental warning, then purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, and output behavior. Every sentence provides distinct value without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and output nature (sample size, confidence, sorted). Though no output schema exists, the description adequately informs an agent about what to expect and how to use the tool.

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% with description of 'search' parameter. Description adds value by explaining behavior: diacritic-insensitive substring search with min 2 chars, example mapping 'gda' to Gdańsk, and omitting returns full catalog.

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 clearly states the tool lists cities/counties with rental yield coverage data, distinguishing it from get_rental_yield which computes yield. It uses specific verbs (list) and resource (cities/counties for rental yield).

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?

Explicitly states use case: discover valid location/teryt values for get_rental_yield instead of guessing. Also clarifies it does not compute yield, directing to call get_rental_yield for actual values. Provides warning about experimental nature.

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