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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the series is 'LIVE weekly median-ASK' and that 'Archived (2015–2019 Internet-Archive) and cited SOLD anchors are partner-tier depth and are teased, not returned,' which is a significant limitation not visible in the schema. It lacks details on rate limits or errors, but the key access restriction is disclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core output and scope, and includes a limitation clause without unnecessary elaboration. The term 'teased' is slightly jargon-y but acceptable; the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 the main purpose and a key access restriction, but it doesn't specify the return format or pagination behavior, and since there is no output schema, this information is missing. It also doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling price tools like get_market_median or get_price_increases, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100% since both spec and timeframe have descriptions with enum values. The tool description adds contextual meaning about the data being weekly median-ASK but does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 returns 'LIVE weekly median-ASK series for a bag spec,' specifying the resource and scope with notable differentiation from archived/sold anchors. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'median-ASK' vs. 'SOLD anchors' and depth tiers. A minor issue is the absence of an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches,' but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies this is the tool for live median-ASK price data and notes that archived/sold anchors are 'teased, not returned,' which suggests when not to use it for sold-price needs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide clear when-to-use/not-to-use guidance, leaving usage mostly implied.

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