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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a small behavioral cue by indicating the data is 'published' statistics, but does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or any quirks. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main output type and then scopes it by required and optional parameters. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose and output type, but it does not explain how to choose this over sibling price tools or what a valid project_type looks like. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the returned structure would improve completeness.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only echoes project_type and nature without adding format details, valid values for project_type, or interaction effects between the parameters. 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns statistical aggregates (medians, quartiles, tension indices) for a given project type and optional nature. It identifies the resource and output type, making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, but the statistical focus is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like daily_rates, private_market_prices, or sources_and_method. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or the meaning of the optional nature parameter in decision-making. The only implied context is that it fits price-statistics needs.

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