get_market_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and adds useful constraints (historyRange 1-24, default 12), but omits details such as data source, update frequency, or response aggregation specifics. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured: a single substantive sentence for purpose, followed by a concise argument list. No wasted words or redundancy.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It lacks comparative usage notes (which affect Usage Guidelines) and data source details, but these are not critical for a straightforward stats 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?

The description fully explains both parameters: zipCode is a 5-digit code, and historyRange specifies months (1-24, default 12). This compensates completely for the schema's 0% description coverage, adding format, range, and default behavior.

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 opens with 'Get aggregate market statistics and price trends for a zip code' – a specific verb, resource (market statistics), and scope (zip code). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_property_value or get_rent_estimate, which focus on individual properties.

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 context of zip-code-level aggregate data is explicit, making it obvious when to choose this over listing-specific tools. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, falling short of a 5.

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