Get homes.com property tax history (DEPRECATED — use homes_get_history)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond those hints: deprecation status, planned removal, equivalence to alternatives, and the field-name mismatch (`tax_records` vs `records`). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded so an agent immediately knows not to prefer this tool. Every sentence earns its place: alternatives, removal timeline, field-name warning, and a one-line summary of the return data. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 deprecated read-only tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, alternatives, deprecation, output fields, and the record-name difference. It does not give exact JSON key names for each output field, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and strong schema coverage.

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 schema covers the only parameter, `url`, with a clear description, so the schema carries the full burden. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning `url` in the replacement call, which is not needed for understanding this tool's single parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as 'year-by-year property-tax records' and names the exact fields returned (tax paid, total assessed value, land/improvement split). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the replacement paths (`homes_get_history`, `homes_get_property`), so an agent knows precisely what it does and how it fits in the family.

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 opens with an explicit deprecation and gives concrete alternatives: use `homes_get_history` or `homes_get_property({ include_tax_history: true })`. It explains why (same data, fewer round trips), notes the future removal, and even flags the `tax_records` vs `records` naming difference, leaving no ambiguity about when to avoid this tool.

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