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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool returns monthly time-series data, which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs to know.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool returns and for what purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information and every phrase 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?

For a read-only, idempotent data-retrieval tool with simple parameters, the description covers the essential return shape (monthly time series) and the scope (metro or state). It does not detail the exact output structure, but without an output schema the description still gives enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 fully documents metric, months, and region. The description adds domain context by naming ZHVI and ZORI, but this largely repeats what the schema already states, so the added value is marginal.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource: monthly time series of home values (ZHVI) or rents (ZORI) for a metro or state. This distinguishes it from broader tools like realestate_search or realestate_market_screen, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 'to chart or analyze the trend' implies the tool is for trend analysis over time, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like realestate_home_values, realestate_rents, or realestate_status, nor does it provide exclusions.

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