Get Redfin market report for a region

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; safe to call repeatedly.' It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape of each metric and the behavioral caveat that neighborhoods typically return empty data. This gives an agent useful expectations before invoking.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines scope and outputs, the second gives parameter routing guidance, and the third communicates return structure plus safety. The most actionable usage instruction follows immediately after the purpose statement.

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 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the metric object structure, two region-specification modes, the property-type default, a location quality caveat, and read-only/idempotent safety. An agent can call the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 100% since all four parameters have descriptions. The description adds meaning above the schema by explaining how `location` resolves via autocomplete, contrasting it with the direct `region_id`+`region_type` path, and stating the `property_type` default value.

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 resource ('market report for a Redfin region') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, including median list/sold prices, $/sqft, sale-to-list ratio, and change-over-time figures. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like redfin_get_property or redfin_search_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?

It provides explicit invocation guidance: use either `location` (free-text via autocomplete, best with city names; neighborhoods typically return empty data) or `region_id` + `region_type` directly, and mentions the `property_type` default. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the market-report scope and metric list make the intended use clear.

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