Compare renovation planning ranges across cities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying results are planning benchmarks sorted by low end. It provides context on the nature of the output but does not cover error conditions or authorization needs.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the action and add clarifying context. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 only two parameters with full schema descriptions, annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (planning benchmarks, sorted by low end). It lacks details on result structure but is sufficient for a read-only 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 coverage for both parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, such as format for metros or project.

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 compares the same 2026 project-type planning range across multiple cities, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_city_cost_range (single city) and list_markets (market listing) by focusing on cross-city comparison.

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 the tool should be used when comparing planning ranges across cities, and explicitly notes results are not quotes or contractor rankings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context makes it clear.

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