Get Redfin price history for a property

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the returned entry fields, data-source attribution, tax-history inclusion, and the either-or identifier requirement. Restating 'read-only; safe to call repeatedly' is redundant but harmless.

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 mostly efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose and returned contents. The final 'Read-only; safe to call repeatedly' repeats annotation hints, adding slight redundancy, but the overall length is reasonable and each other sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains both the main return contents and the valid input modes. Minor gaps remain around what happens if both url and IDs are supplied, and how to obtain the identifiers, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33%, with just the url parameter described. The description compensates by specifying the critical relationship: provide either url or the property_id+listing_id pair. It does not deeply define each ID's origin or format, but the names are self-explanatory and the grouping rule is materially useful.

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 identifies the resource as listing-price events for a single property and enumerates event types (listings, price changes, pending, sold). It also mentions the tax-history series, distinguishing this tool from property-details, market-report, and climate-risk siblings.

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 when to use this tool — when you need listing-level price events or tax history for one property. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like redfin_get_property or redfin_get_market_report, nor does it state when not to use it.

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