get_cost_of_living

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It implies a read-only operation (returns indicators) with no mention of side effects, permissions, or limitations. Minimal behavioral context beyond the operation type.

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 relatively concise with a clear main sentence and a bullet list of return items. The Args block adds minor redundancy with the schema, but overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately summarizes return content. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool fits with siblings and does not address edge cases (e.g., invalid state names), leaving completeness moderate.

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 0%, but the description explains the 'state' parameter with format examples ('NY', 'New York'). This adds value beyond the schema, but does not provide additional depth (e.g., accepted formats, case sensitivity). 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('housing affordability and cost-of-living indicators for a US state'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'compare_areas' or 'get_area_demographics', which may overlap in scope.

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 use for US states but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints are given, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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