house_pricesget_running_costs_deprecated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what format the running costs are returned in, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid property IDs. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 only three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to use its limited space to provide meaningful context. Every word should earn its place, but this description provides minimal value.

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 apparent purpose (retrieving financial data for properties), the lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The agent cannot understand what 'running costs' encompasses, how results are structured, or the tool's behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the missing structured information.

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%, with the single parameter 'property_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 running costs' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the tool retrieves running costs, it doesn't specify what resource this applies to (presumably properties/houses) or distinguish it from the sibling tool 'propertiesget_running_costs_deprecated' which likely serves a similar purpose. The description lacks the specificity needed for clear differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'propertiesget_running_costs_deprecated' or 'house_pricesestimate_deprecated' that might offer related functionality. The agent receives no help in tool selection.

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