house_pricesget_historic_listings_deprecated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. As a deprecated tool, it should warn about potential obsolescence or recommend alternatives, but no such context is given.

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 ('Get historic listings') but under-specified, not front-loaded with useful information. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to earn its place by lacking essential details like scope or differentiation, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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, single parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or why it's deprecated, leaving gaps that hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in context with sibling tools.

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 the single parameter 'property_id', detailing its type, default value, and source. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'historic listings' entails or how the parameter influences results. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 historic listings' restates the tool name 'get_historic_listings_deprecated' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what 'historic listings' means (e.g., past property sale records, price history) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'house_pricesget_sales_history_deprecated' or 'propertieslist_deprecated', leaving the purpose vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'house_pricesget_sales_history_deprecated' and 'house_pricesv2estimate', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it misleading for an agent to select the correct tool among deprecated and v2 versions.

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