house_pricesget_points_of_interest_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. It states 'Get nearest points of interest', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral context.

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 'Get nearest points of interest' is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it could be improved by adding a bit more context without sacrificing brevity, as it currently feels slightly under-specified for a tool with no annotations.

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, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple siblings), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'points of interest' entails, why it's deprecated, or how results are returned. For a tool that likely provides location-based data critical for property analysis, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent 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, with the parameter 'property_id' documented as 'The value of property_id field returned in .../house-prices/estimate endpoint.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how 'property_id' relates to points of interest or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the 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 nearest points of interest' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('points of interest'), but it's vague about what types of points of interest (e.g., schools, parks, shops) and lacks specificity compared to siblings like 'get_area_stats' or 'get_market_activity'. It doesn't clearly distinguish itself from other tools that might also retrieve location-based data, such as 'get_nearby_deprecated' or 'get_area_stats_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for property analysis), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. With siblings like 'get_area_stats_deprecated' and 'get_nearby_deprecated', the lack of explicit comparison or use-case details is a significant gap.

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