redfin_region_trends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add useful context: it is a read-style retrieval of Redfin's public aggregate-trends resource and lists the returned metrics. However, it does not disclose output shape, pagination, time-window behavior, or any caveats about region_type/region_id consistency.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states the purpose and returns, and the second adds the pass-through caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with fully covered schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what data comes back and that the resource is a faithful pass-through; only minor details like response formatting or time coverage are absent, but these are not critical for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 both region_id and region_type are already documented in the schema, including enum values and the default. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond naming the resource, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Redfin region market trends'), and enumerates the concrete metrics returned (median list/sale price, sale-to-list, offers, days on market, inventory, year-over-year). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling Redfin tools like redfin_estimate, redfin_property, or redfin_search by emphasizing aggregate regional trends.

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 implies usage: call when you need aggregate market trends for a region. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives like redfin_estimate or redfin_property, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the trend-specific wording.

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