reunion_get_social_housing_costs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the data is sorted year descending and returns median values for two streams. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no data exists, or any authentication or rate-limit constraints. Basic but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: first describes outputs, second lists use cases. No redundant or extraneous information. Front-loaded with key details.

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 data retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers return data, breakdown, sort order, and use cases. It could mention error handling or data source, but overall sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting the data is sorted year descending, which is not in the schema. This enhances the agent's understanding of the output ordering.

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 clearly states the tool returns median surfaces and unit costs of social housing operations, broken down by year and operation type. It specifies exact metrics (m², price per m², total cost) and distinguishes itself from siblings like reunion_get_housing_overview.

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 explicitly lists use cases (HLM benchmarking, public-spending analysis, cost evolution monitoring), providing clear context. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the specificity makes alternatives obvious.

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