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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the deprecation status and the data-source/regional-adjustment context, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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, focused sentence that immediately delivers the deprecation warning and core functionality. Every phrase earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, the deprecation status, and the replacement alternative, which is sufficient for a deprecated tool. Minor detail about regional adjustment is included but not exhaustive; still, overall completeness is high.

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 all three parameters (city_key, state_code, project_type) are individually described. The tool description only lightly references 'state/city' and 'project type' without adding deeper semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a neutral score of 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 'Get a 2026 market cost range for a home-remodeling project in a US state/city' and specifies the data source ('Zonda Cost vs. Value benchmarks with regional adjustment'). It also explicitly names the preferred sibling tool, distinguishing it from 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 description opens with 'Deprecated: prefer remodeleriq_get_cost_estimate', which explicitly instructs the agent to use an alternative. This serves as both a when-not-to-use directive and a clear alternative recommendation, making the usage guidance highly explicit.

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