emlakjet_price_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the most important behavioral trait: it discloses that stats are computed only over the first N pages (1..5, default 3) at 50 listings per page, so the agent knows results are a sample, not an exhaustive market census. It does not mention latency, rate limits, auth, or whether zero-result searches return empty/null stats, which keeps it below a 5.

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 dense sentence with the metric list front-loaded and the sampling constraints in a trailing parenthetical; there is no filler. It is slightly overloaded with parentheticals, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description usefully previews the metric set anyway. Against a 6-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, though, the omission of listing_type and property_type semantics (including that defaults restrict results to for-sale apartments) leaves a real 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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It covers city, district, rooms, and pages (including the 1..5 range and default 3), but says nothing about listing_type (default 'satilik') or property_type (default 'daire') — two parameters whose allowed values and defaults an agent cannot infer without them.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination: it computes aggregate market statistics (count, min, max, median, average, median price per m²) for a city with optional district/rooms filters. This clearly separates it from emlakjet_search or emlakjet_listing_detail, though it never names those siblings explicitly and only alludes to 'search pages'.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the optional district/rooms and the pages cap suggest when this tool is appropriate, and the mention of 'search pages' hints that listing-level browsing belongs to another tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to emlakjet_search as the alternative for individual listings.

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