house_pricesget_market_activity_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. It mentions 'Get' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it's not front-loaded with critical information (e.g., purpose details or usage context), which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data by explaining return values, error conditions, or behavioral context. For a tool with two parameters and siblings, more detail is needed to be adequately helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('identifier' and 'area') with detailed descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter roles or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 market activity in an area' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('market activity'), but it's vague about what 'market activity' entails (e.g., listings, sales, trends) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_area_stats_deprecated' or 'get_sales_history_deprecated'. It avoids tautology by not restating the name/title, but lacks specificity.

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 'get_area_stats_deprecated' and 'get_sales_history_deprecated', the description doesn't indicate context, exclusions, or prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the tool name, not by explicit instructions.

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