secondary_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little: it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether results are cached or live, how 'accrued trend' is computed or over what window, or what happens for a district with no tracked sources. The one useful disclosure is that figures are 'korter's own' rather than external market data.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary output (aggregates) and tacks on the secondary output (trend) with no filler. Dense but not padded; the parenthetical earns its space by enumerating the actual metrics.

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?

With one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only specification an agent gets, and it does cover the return payload reasonably. It still leaves the optional-district default, the trend's time window, and any tracking precondition unaddressed, which for a data-retrieval tool of this shape is a real but modest gap.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'district' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Per district' implies the parameter scopes the aggregation, but it never says whether district is required, what format it takes, or what is returned when it is omitted (the schema marks it optional). That omission is material given districts are enumerable via list_districts.

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 resource and its returned fields: secondary-market aggregates per district, with avg price/m² plus sale and rent ranges, and an accrued trend. The scope ('per district', 'tracked secondary sources') is concrete enough that an agent can tell what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_secondary, 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 statement of when to call this versus search_secondary, price_history, or list_districts, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'for tracked secondary sources' hints that tracking must exist first, but that implication is never made actionable.

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