realestate_analyze_price_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as prerequisites, data limitations, or response nuances, but does not contradict the 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 concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a structured parameter list. Each parameter line includes a brief description and example, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's read-only analysis nature and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and all parameters. It does not mention prerequisites like needing to obtain a region code first, but the parameter examples and filter explanations make it reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description's Args section compensates by explaining all six parameters, including examples for date format ('202301'), area range ('59-84'), and response_format options. This adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, though it could be more precise about region/apt_name formats.

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 analyzes price trends for a specific region or apartment complex, using a specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('price trends'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transaction search and rent analysis by focusing on trend analysis over time.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing price trends, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like realestate_search_apt_trade or realestate_compare_regions. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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