Walk-forward backtest of the valuation model

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 and does so thoroughly. It reveals the no-look-ahead rule, the exclusion of the own deed, the comparison against actual sale prices, and the exact output metrics returned. This is highly transparent for an agent.

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 carry a dense amount of useful information: methodology, core behavior, output metrics, and intended usage. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place with no repetition of schema 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 tool with no output schema, the description lists the output metrics in sufficient detail for an agent to interpret results. The methodology and data source are clearly explained, and the required parameters are simple and covered by the schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter. The description adds context about the methodology and outputs but does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Replay') and resource ('the comparable-sales estimator on the commune's own notarized sales'), and clearly explains the walk-forward methodology. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling estimate_property by positioning this as the reliability-checking counterpart.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to say how reliable estimate_property is in this specific market.' It names the relevant sibling and the intended purpose, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for other scenarios.

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