propertiesget_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. 'Get running costs' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what rate limits apply, what happens with invalid parameters, or what the response format looks like. The 'deprecated' suffix in the tool name suggests limited support, but the description doesn't warn about this.

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 just three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to provide the necessary context that would help an agent understand what the tool actually does. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity and 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'running costs' means in this context, what units or time periods are involved, or what the return format looks like. The 'deprecated' status in the tool name suggests this tool may have limitations or alternatives, but the description doesn't address this.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information 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 restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what resource the costs are associated with (properties), what time period is covered, or what format the costs are returned in. While the name suggests it's about properties running costs, the description fails to elaborate beyond the obvious.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'propertiesv2detail' and 'propertiesv2list' that might serve similar purposes, but the description doesn't help an agent understand when this deprecated tool is appropriate versus newer versions or other property-related tools.

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