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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data provenance and recency (250,000+ closed government auctions, nearly all within 12 months), but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, result size, or behavior with a partial parameter set.

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?

Two dense sentences with the data scope front-loaded and the two usage modes stated immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't clarify parameter-combination validity, output shape, or how it differs from sold_comps_batch. An agent would need to guess at some calling conventions.

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 only 33% (only listing_id is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning by pairing state+category as an aggregate query and tying listing_id to exact percentile comps, but leaves unclear whether state or category can be used alone or what happens with all three combined.

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 names a specific resource (sold-price comps/statistics) with provenance and defines two distinct modes: state+category aggregates versus listing_id percentile comps. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like sold_comps_batch or get_sold_history, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from names alone.

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?

Usage is implied through parameter-mode pairing ('Category+state aggregates, or exact percentile comps for a live listing via listing_id'), which tells the agent which inputs select which behavior. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance for the single-listing case versus sold_comps_batch, and no statement of what happens when no parameters are supplied.

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