macro_usa_house_starts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data range and source URL, plus the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not elaborate on frequency, columns, or limitations. No contradiction with 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 description is short and front-loaded with the core meaning. It includes a source URL and docstring-style return/type lines, which are useful. Slight redundancy with the title repeated in the return line, but overall compact and structured.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential metric, date range, and return type. However, it does not specify the data frequency (e.g., monthly) or any output columns, and it lacks sibling differentiation context, which is important given the large number of similar macro_usa_* tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 the US new housing starts total annualized report with a specific date range (19700101-present). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like macro_usa_new_home_sales, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other macro_usa_* tools. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection purely from the name and description.

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