house_pricesestimate_deprecated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what format the returned list uses, or any error conditions. The word 'deprecated' in the tool name suggests it's outdated, but the description doesn't acknowledge this or provide migration guidance.

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?

While technically concise with just four words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load critical information about the tool's purpose and behavior. Every word should earn its place, but this description provides minimal value - it's not structured to help an agent understand what the tool actually does beyond the obvious.

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 deprecated tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'deprecated' means, doesn't provide migration guidance to 'house_pricesv2estimate', doesn't describe the return format or structure, and offers no behavioral context. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should do much more to compensate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'identifier' and 'area', clarify what 'estimated house prices' means in relation to the parameters, or provide examples. With comprehensive schema documentation, the baseline 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 'Returned list of estimated house prices' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'house_pricesestimate_deprecated' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'calculate', 'fetch') or clarify what 'estimated' means in this context. While it mentions 'list', it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'house_pricesv2estimate' or 'house_pricesget_historic_listings_deprecated'.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this deprecated tool should be used compared to its v2 counterpart 'house_pricesv2estimate', nor does it explain its relationship to other house price tools like 'house_pricesget_area_stats_deprecated' or 'house_pricesget_sales_history_deprecated'. No prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts are indicated.

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