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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that results are paginated and defines the returned fields, including the domain-critical note that the index is normalized to 1981 = 100. Auth/rate-limit behavior is not covered, keeping it from 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?

Compact and front-loaded: the resource, the pagination mechanic, and the field list appear in one tight sequence with no filler. The only blemish is that 'pass next_cursor' borrows the schema's value wording while the actual parameter is named 'cursor', a minor naming friction.

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 no output schema available, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and their types, including the index base year, which is the key semantic an agent needs. Input parameters are fully covered by the schema, and annotations carry the safety profile. Usage context is the only notable absence.

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%, so all seven input parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description explains output fields rather than the query parameters, adding only the '1981 = 100' index semantics as extra meaning; no additional input-parameter guidance is supplied.

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 opening sentence merely restates the title ('House price index'), but 'Returns a list of records' clarifies the behavior as a retrieval/query tool. The resource is identifiable, yet nothing distinguishes it from the many similar statistical dataset siblings (consumer_prices, population, municipal_figures). Purpose is legible but under-articulated.

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 pagination mechanics ('pass next_cursor to get the next page'), but no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over alternatives like consumer_prices, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets operational hints but no selection criteria.

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