propertiesget_broadband_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 broadband information' gives no insight into whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary elaboration. Every word directly relates to the tool's function, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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, property-related context, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what 'broadband information' entails, how results are formatted, or why the tool is deprecated compared to newer 'v2' siblings. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.

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 'listing_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how broadband data relates to the listing ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the 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 broadband information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'propertiesget_broadband_deprecated' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of broadband information is retrieved (e.g., availability, speed, providers) or distinguish this tool from its many siblings, particularly other 'properties' and 'house_prices' tools that might also provide property-related data.

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. With 22 sibling tools, including other deprecated properties tools and newer 'v2' versions, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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