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

The annotations already cover safety traits such as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the metrics returned and the distinction between RCN notarial data and the GUS quarterly series, though it lacks caveats such as data recency or permissions.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core dataset and metrics, followed by a compact note on the GUS source alternative. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety behavior, the description supplies the necessary dataset scope, metrics, geographic granularity, and source alternative for correct invocation. No critical context is missing.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the source option and city/district scope but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource and verb: transaction prices of flats per square meter from notarial deeds (RCN), and lists the metrics and geographic granularity. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as get_housing_costs or get_rents.

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?

The description explains that source='gus' switches to the GUS quarterly series and that omitting city returns all cities, which is useful usage context. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over related sibling tools like get_housing_costs or get_rents.

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