Get historical property transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'get transactions' by explaining the nature of the data (actual recorded transactions, not asking prices) and the included details (price per sqm, first sale vs resale). It does not mention response format or pagination, but for a read-only tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 purpose and key data details, then followed by use cases and a distinguishing contrast. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 4 params and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (transactions with price per sqm and sale type) and its intended use. It does not explain the 'page' parameter or anything about pagination, but the core functionality is sufficiently clear for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 75%, covering location, purpose, and timePeriod, so per the rubric baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning; it mentions sale/rental and UAE area, but this mostly mirrors the schema. No additional guidance is provided for the 'page' param, which lacks a schema description.

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 it returns actual recorded sale and rental transactions with price per sqm and first-sale/resale status, using a specific verb (get) and resource (historical property transactions). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search_properties by contrasting actual sales with asking prices.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this for valuation, market trends, and price-per-sqm questions.' It also names a sibling alternative (search_properties) and explains the key difference. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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