divar_price_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool analyzes 'live listings' and 'comparable' items, and it notes the currency unit (Toman). However, it does not explain how pagination/sampling works, whether a city or query is required for meaningful results, or any limits or error conditions. This is partial but not complete transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before listing the output components. The parenthetical enumeration is information-dense but slightly unwieldy. It earns a 4 for efficiency and clarity, not a 5 because the formatting could be more 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key contract: what kind of analysis is performed, what metrics are returned, and the unit of measure. It lacks exact return format details and behavior when optional parameters are omitted, but it provides enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. This is strong but not fully 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 input schema already covers all six parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds strategic context ('comparable live listings' and decision purpose) but does not introduce new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, and it repeats the Toman unit already present in price parameter descriptions.

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's function: computing the price distribution of comparable live listings for a specific decision (what to ask before posting an ad). It lists concrete output components such as median, p25/p75, suggested ask range, price bands, and samples, which makes the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like divar_search or divar_similar_posts, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear when-to-use context: 'to decide what to ask before posting an ad'. This tells an agent the intended scenario and implicitly distinguishes it from listing/search tools. It does not provide explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to alternative tools, which would warrant a 5.

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