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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'detailed price statistics, percentiles, and regional rankings,' which sets expectations for output. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any potential side effects, data limitations, or ordering defaults. This is a minor gap for a comparison tool, but sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second summarizes the output type, and the Args section is formatted clearly for easy parsing. No redundant information or fluff exists.

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?

The description covers all two parameters and gives a high-level view of the return value. With an output schema present (not shown), the agent can rely on that for detailed structure. The description could mention limitations (e.g., max number of regions) but that's not necessary for basic use. Overall, it is complete enough for an effective selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema provides only parameter names and default values with no descriptions. The description's 'Args' section adds substantial meaning: it explains that regions are comma-separated, provides an example, and clarifies that empty means 'all.' Similarly, category filtering is explained. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and object: 'Compare construction prices across regions and categories.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_companies (which compares companies) and region_comparison (which may focus on regional overall stats, not price statistics). The mention of 'price statistics, percentiles, and regional rankings' further clarifies the deliverable.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever comparing construction prices by regions and categories. It also gives parameter usage semantics ('Empty = all'), which serves as implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but given the tool's focused purpose, the usage context is clear enough.

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