house_pricesget_area_stats_deprecated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get area stats' implies a read operation but doesn't specify what data is returned, whether it's historical or current, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. Every word directly relates to the tool's function, though it's under-specified rather than wasteful.

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 tool's complexity (deprecated status, potential data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'area stats' includes, how results are formatted, or why it's deprecated compared to v2 alternatives. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'property_id', detailing its type, default value, and source. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get area stats' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'house_pricesget_area_stats_deprecated'. It doesn't specify what 'area stats' means, what resource it operates on, or how it differs from similar tools like 'house_pricesv2get_area' or 'propertiesget_area_stats_deprecated'. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation from siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With multiple deprecated and v2 tools available (e.g., 'house_pricesv2get_area'), the agent has no indication of why or when to choose this deprecated version over others.

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