Property transaction value

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the upstream source (tax.gov.ir GetAddressGeoLocation), the exact payload shape (booklet block/row, residential/office/commercial and rent values in rial per m²), and the missing-data sentinel string 'عدم وجود اطلاعات'.

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 in the first sentence, then layers output contents and the geocoding caveat. Dense but each sentence carries information; the Persian term and source citation are justified for disambiguation in a tax-data domain.

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, the description fully carries the burden of describing return values (block/row, per-type values, rent values, tax offices, and the no-data sentinel) and states the coordinate prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool appears to be 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents latitude/longitude (WGS84, bounds) and the Jalali year with default. The description only restates the coordinate requirement rather than adding format or usage nuance, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return the official property transaction value per square metre at a map point') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling search/regulation tools. An agent can tell this is a point-lookup valuation tool, not a search tool, without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite — the caller must supply coordinates and the server does not geocode — which is exactly the kind of context that prevents a failed call. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but no sibling overlaps meaningfully with this function.

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