ImotAI market statistics for a city or district

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuine behavioral edge case: returns { available: false } below 8 offers, plus the scope restriction to sale offers and all residential types. It omits auth/rate-limit context, but for a read-only aggregate endpoint the disclosed sample threshold is meaningful beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose then lists outputs compactly, with the useful return caveat last. Two tight sentences with no filler; the dense middle list is slightly hard to scan but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must summarize returns, and it does so adequately (count, average and percentile price metrics, room-count breakdown, neighbouring districts). With only two well-documented parameters and a disclosed fallback response, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination or response-shape detail is absent.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'omit for city-level stats' behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (aggregate market statistics for a Bulgarian city or district on imotai.bg) and enumerates exactly what is produced: offer count, average and P25/P50/P75 for total price and price per m², and a room-count breakdown. It is clearly distinct from get_property/estimate_value/search_properties in substance, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 scope ('Sale offers, all residential types') and the city-vs-district choice imply when this tool applies, and the district guidance is covered in the schema. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over estimate_value or search_properties, so routing is left to inference.

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