house_pricesget_sales_history_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 sales history' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as data format, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's deprecated (as hinted by the name). The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond basic intent.

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, but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it's front-loaded and wastes no words, it fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise. A slightly longer description could add value without sacrificing clarity.

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 (a single-parameter read operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'sales history' returns (e.g., a list of transactions, dates, prices) or any behavioral context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate by providing more detail, but it remains minimal and inadequate for effective tool 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 single parameter 'property_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, as it doesn't mention 'property_id' or any usage context. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics without needing description enhancement.

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 sales history' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_sales_history_deprecated'. While it identifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('sales history'), it doesn't specify what 'sales history' entails (e.g., transaction records, price trends, dates) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_historic_listings_deprecated' or 'get_market_activity_deprecated'. This minimal description fails to provide meaningful 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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for historical sales data versus current market activity or listings, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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