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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world data retrieval tool. The description adds useful domain context by listing the metrics returned, but it does not disclose data freshness, update frequency, source, or whether the result is a snapshot versus a time series. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical metric list is compact and the geography scope is clear.

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 low complexity, complete parameter schema, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is that it does not distinguish this tool from similar housing or regional siblings, but return-value details are covered by the output schema.

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%, and the single optional city parameter is fully documented in the schema, including omission behavior for all cities. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific resource (asking rents) and lists concrete metrics: median, per m², month-over-month change, gross/net rental yield, and payback period. It also scopes the data to Polish cities and districts. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as get_housing_costs, get_housing_prices, or get_regional_data.

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 states what data is returned but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools covering housing, regional, and macro data, yet no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are provided.

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