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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail: the series is empty when too few months clear the sample threshold, and results never contradict get_sold_comps. It doesn't cover timeframe or recency of data, but this is a meaningful addition beyond annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the core computation, the relationship to get_sold_comps, and the empty-series edge case are each stated once and in priority order. Every sentence 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately states the return shape and the edge case, while annotations cover the safety profile. The main gaps are the semantically empty category parameter and the absence of explicit guidance for choosing between this tool and get_sold_history. Still, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly for a typical request.

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?

Only q has a real description in the schema; category is completely undocumented. The description adds the idea of an 'item' and category-level softening, but it does not explain how state, country, or category affect the series. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 the tool computes a month-by-month median sale price plus a first-to-last change, which is a specific deliverable. It also distinguishes itself from get_sold_comps by noting it is computed from the same comps. However, it never contrasts itself with get_sold_history, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 phrase 'is this category softening?' implies the tool is for assessing price trends, and the get_sold_comps reference suggests it should be used alongside sold comps. But there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, and no mention of when the trend tool is preferable to get_sold_history.

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