crehq_trends_geographic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool surfaces market trends and covers metro/state concentration, adding useful context. However, it doesn't explain data aggregation, recency, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every phrase adds value: introduces the analysis type, mentions the geographic scope, and clarifies the output (heating/cooling markets). No waste.

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 an analytics tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it reveals. It lacks details on output structure or data limitations, but these are less critical given the simple parameter set and read-only nature.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by linking 'metro/state' to the state parameter and 'verticals' to category, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 performs geographic trend analysis, specifically metro/state concentration and opening/closing velocity. It also says it surfaces heating/cooling markets, which distinguishes it from sibling trends_company and other location-specific tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use it (when interested in geographic patterns across brands and verticals) and implicitly differentiates from crehq_trends_company by focusing on geographic footprint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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