analyze_market

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. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention any rate limits, performance implications, or side effects. The description only lists output dimensions, not behavioral traits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the key analytical capabilities. It is concise and avoids fluff, though the list format is somewhat terse and could benefit from a brief explanation of the metric parameter.

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 has 15 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main metric categories but omits guidance on how to combine filters or interpret results. The output schema likely defines the return structure, but the description does not help an agent decide which filters to apply for a given question, leaving some gaps in practical usage.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain any parameters beyond what the schema already says. Parameters like make, model, year_min, price_min, etc., have no descriptions in the schema and are also absent from the tool description, so the agent has no additional semantic guidance for those.

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 identifies the tool as 'Market analytics' and lists specific metrics (median prices, premiums, dealer vs private, etc.), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_price_history or find_deals. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, but the scope is unambiguous.

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, such as get_price_history for a single vehicle or find_deals for bargains. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the vague 'Market analytics' label.

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