MyPorta

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, fully specifying the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context like whether results are cached, how Ofsted grades are sourced, or any rate limits. With annotations taking the lead, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single comprehensive sentence, front-loading the usage scenario and then listing compared attributes. It is efficient and has no wasted words, though the long list of attributes could be seen as slightly dense.

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 there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the purpose, source of ids, and comparison scope sufficiently. However, it could mention that exactly two to four ids are required (the schema has constraints but the description only says 'two to four'), and it doesn't address error handling or invalid IDs. Mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the single parameter home_ids is fully documented with its source ('Ids from search_homes') and constraints (min 2, max 4 items). The description mentions 'two to four homes' which restates the schema constraints but adds no extra meaning like ID format or edge cases. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('compare') and resource ('homes') and enumerates exactly what attributes are compared (price, rooms, schools, Ofsted grade, station, etc.). It also names the sibling tool 'search_homes' as the source of the ids, which clearly distinguishes it from get_home and get_area_guide.

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?

It provides clear context: 'use this when the user wants to compare two to four homes from search_homes results side by side.' The reference to search_homes gives the alternative source. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g., comparing more than four homes, or single-home details), so a slight gap remains.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that it returns a summary and a full-guide link, which is modest value because an output schema already exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition and followed by the return summary. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a simple, read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies the needed when-to-use and high-level return context. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter, and the schema description coverage is 100% with its own 'Town, village or neighbourhood name' description. The tool description adds no formatting, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and output: MyPorta's area guide summary plus a link to the full guide. It clearly distinguishes the tool from home-search siblings by topic, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

It gives a precise usage trigger: when the user asks what a UK town, village or neighbourhood is like to live in. It does not state when not to use the tool or point to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the breadth of returned data (Ofsted grades, broadband, nearby amenities), which tells the agent what one call actually yields. It doesn't mention failure behavior for a stale/invalid home_id.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the usage trigger and ends with the parameter. The long enumeration of data categories is dense but each item is informative for selection; it is not padded prose.

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 explained, yet the description helpfully previews the coverage. With annotations, a full schema, and a clear usage trigger, an agent has what it needs; only error/staleness behavior is absent.

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 the single home_id parameter is already documented as coming from search_homes. 'Takes the home's id' merely restates the schema, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it.

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 a home's details') scoped to a single home, and explicitly anchors it to search_homes results, distinguishing it from the plural sibling search_homes and from compare_homes. The enumerated detail categories make the scope unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Use this when the user asks about one home from search_homes results') and implicitly routes discovery to search_homes. It stops short of an explicit when-not or naming compare_homes as the alternative for multi-home questions.

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

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description goes further by disclosing the ranking behavior (homes ranked by fit with a 0-100 match score and supporting evidence) and the result cap of 10 homes with price, bedrooms, agent and link.

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 when-to-use condition and the key parameter guidance; every sentence carries operational content rather than filler. It is dense and somewhat long, with the returning-amenities enumeration being the least essential part given an output schema exists.

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?

For an 11-parameter, open-ended search with an output schema already describing results, the description supplies everything an agent needs: trigger condition, geographic granularity of `place`, the wishes/must_haves distinction, and the ranking/scoring model. Nothing material is left ambiguous.

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 coverage is 64%, and the description meaningfully compensates by drawing the tricky wishes vs must_haves boundary with concrete examples ('garage' vs 'near the sea', 'good schools'), which is the most error-prone parameter decision here. It adds little on sort, limit, property_type or the bed/price ranges, which the schema covers.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('find homes for sale or to rent in the UK'), including the geographic scope. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like compare_homes, get_home and get_area_guide, which handle comparison, single-listing retrieval and area narrative respectively.

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?

It clearly states the triggering condition ('when the user wants to find homes for sale or to rent') and instructs the agent on what to pass along (place, budget, bedrooms, type). It does not explicitly name when to prefer compare_homes or get_home instead, so the routing vs alternatives is implied rather than spelled out.

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