Get Market Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: aggregated-not-individual data, per-country data availability and sources, degradation to available=false, and 'One API call' cost. It omits auth requirements and whether results are cached or rate-limited, but the behavioral disclosure is well above average for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then coverage details in tight parenthetical clauses. Every sentence earns its place, with only minor density in the country enumeration. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does: France returns average EUR/m2, number of sales, last sale date and estimated value; Italy returns OMI zone values; Germany returns Bodenrichtwert per m2 or available=false. It also covers the reference-note case, so an agent knows exactly what to expect across all inputs.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to the country parameter by mapping its enum values to concrete outcomes (ES/PV/NA/PT => note only; FR/IT/DE => figures), which the schema description alone does not convey.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Aggregated land and property price reference for the area around a parcel') and immediately narrows scope with 'Never returns individual sales.' It clearly distinguishes itself from a raw sales-list tool, but it never names or contrasts against close siblings such as get_value_history or get_investment_score, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It gives strong conditional guidance: which countries yield figures (FR, IT, DE/NRW) and what to expect elsewhere (ES, PV, NA, PT return a reference note with no figures; DE outside NRW returns available=false). This tells the agent when the tool is useful versus when it is not. It stops short of pointing to alternative sibling tools for the no-data cases.

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