macro_usa_new_home_sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the historical coverage window (1970-01-01 to present), the upstream data source URL, and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). That is incremental value beyond the annotations, but nothing about update cadence or freshness.

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?

Front-loaded with the indicator name and coverage window in the first line, followed by the source URL. The trailing ':return:' and ':rtype:' lines duplicate the resource name, adding slight redundancy, but overall it is tight.

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 macro data fetch with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, time coverage, source, and return type—enough to call it correctly. Only the sibling-relationship and any refresh/rate-limit behavior are missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing further for the description to clarify.

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 names a specific economic indicator (US new home sales annualized) with a data range, which is a clear verb-resource statement for a data-fetch tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like macro_usa_exist_home_sales or macro_usa_pending_home_sales, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling macro_usa_* housing tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name.

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