Query Housing Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it reasonably well: it discloses the upstream sources per country and explicitly notes 'No API key needed' for US and UK, which is real auth context an agent cannot get elsewhere. It omits failure modes, rate limits, and return shape, so it is not 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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then per-country breakdowns that each carry distinct information (source, metrics, auth). No filler sentences, though the country-by-country list is on the verbose side for a two-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do the work itself — and it largely does, telling the agent what data each country returns and that no credentials are needed. The main gap is return format (shape, units, currency normalization across US/UK/CA), which is left unspecified.

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 100% and both parameters already document auto-detection and the ambiguous-city caveat, so the description largely repeats the schema. Baseline 3 is correct; it adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get housing data') and scopes it precisely to three countries with the data sources and metric families (FMR, median income, house prices, housing starts). It does not differentiate itself from the ~27 siblings, several of which touch adjacent domains (query_cost_of_living, query_permits), 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?

Usage is implied by the resource (call it when you need city-level housing metrics), and it gives one practical rule — country auto-detected, or specify for ambiguous cities. It never states when to prefer a sibling such as query_cost_of_living or query_city_data, and no exclusions are given.

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