НамериМиДом.bg

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add contextual detail. It does so by explaining the incremental nature of results and the default 7-day window for the since parameter. No contradiction with 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 and front-loaded with the core action and usage cadence. The Bulgarian sentence repeats the 'only new matches' idea, adding minor redundancy but not harming clarity.

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?

Covers the essential invocation context: polling schedule, token source, and incremental results. Missing explanation of the required search_id and any indication of what the response contains makes it slightly incomplete for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 already documents subscription_token and since, and the description reinforces the token's origin and the polling window. However, the required search_id parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 action: poll a subscription for listings that appeared since the last check. The 'only new matches' emphasis and the reference to subscription_token from subscribe_to_search clearly distinguish it from search and subscription-creation siblings.

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?

Explicitly recommends a recurring schedule with daily as the default, and tells the agent where the subscription_token comes from. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that figures are 'asking price' stats and that no filtering or listing behavior is involved, but it does not clarify data coverage or aggregation behavior beyond that.

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 short sentences with the key output front-loaded. The bilingual repetition is acceptable and adds no real bulk.

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 stats tool with no output schema, the description provides the main return concept but leaves the transaction parameter undocumented and does not state whether inputs are optional or how location scoping works. Enough for basic selection, but not fully complete for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains city/neighborhood scoping but does not explain the transaction parameter (sale vs. rent) and mentions 'property type' even though no such parameter exists. This is only partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 clear resource and action: computing average and median asking price per m² for a city/neighborhood. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_properties or get_property. However, the phrase 'property type' is not represented in the schema, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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 use when aggregated price-per-m² statistics are needed, and siblings make it distinct from property search or inquiry tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but context makes the primary use case inferable.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what the response contains (description, all photos, features, agency contact), which is especially valuable given no output schema is present.

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 short sentences, bilingual, and front-loaded with the core action and object. No filler or redundant elaboration exists; the bilingual repetition is reasonable given the Bulgarian title and context.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description is complete: it explains what resource is fetched, how it is identified, and what major data categories are returned. It could add explicit guidance about invalid or missing ids, but overall it gives the agent what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter is well documented as 'Listing id from search_properties'. The tool description simply repeats 'by id' without adding semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one real estate listing'), and the key identifier ('by id'). It also names the included payload categories (description, photos, features, agency contact), which clearly distinguishes it from listing-oriented siblings like search_properties and list_locations.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this when full details of a single listing are needed. The schema parameter description, 'Listing id from search_properties', further implies it should be used after search_properties, though the description itself does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns counts, only includes active listings, and can return neighborhoods when a city is provided.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a practical usage tip. The Bulgarian sentence repeats the title and adds no unique information, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no required fields, and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. It could detail the exact response shape more, but the behavior is simple and the usage hint covers the main failure mode.

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 already documents the only parameter fully ('Optional: a city (BG or transliterated) → returns its neighborhoods'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the parameter behavior but doesn't add meaning 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: lists cities and neighborhoods that have active listings, with counts. It also gives a concrete purpose (spelling lookup) that distinguishes it from property search tools.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first if unsure how a location is spelled,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It doesn't mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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 disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds scope context (Bulgaria, sale/rent, filters) but no additional behavioral details like pagination behavior, result limits, or defaults. There is no contradiction with 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 English portion is front-loaded and compact, containing the core purpose and usage trigger. The Bulgarian translation is redundant but not harmful and may aid users of the Bulgarian market context.

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 16-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose and when to call it. It does not describe result shape, pagination, sorting, or default behavior for transaction and currency, though some of that is partially covered by the input schema.

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 about 50%, and the description lists filter categories (city, neighborhood, price range, rooms, area) that map to parameters. It does not explain undocumented parameters like page, sort, limit, price_min/max, area_max, rooms_max, or furnished, leaving some semantics to inference.

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: search real estate listings in Bulgaria, with explicit examples of property types and filter dimensions. It clearly covers the main search intent, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_property or get_price_stats.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this whenever a user asks to find a home, apartment, house or property in Bulgaria.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_price_stats, get_property, or subscribe_to_search.

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 mark the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that it sends an external communication on behalf of the user and requires prior user confirmation. It does not cover failure/success behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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 English portion is compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by the usage condition. The Bulgarian repetition is somewhat redundant for an agent-facing description but does not hurt clarity.

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 straightforward send action with flat parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and optional parameters. It could mention the expected return/confirmation, but the omission is not blocking.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the explicit optionality of phone and message, but otherwise it largely restates what the schema already 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?

The description states a specific action ('Send an inquiry about one listing to its agency') with a clear resource and scope. It is immediately distinguishable from the read/search/subscribe sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after the user picks a property and confirms they want to contact the agency. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the trigger condition is specific enough to guide 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 flag non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior; the description adds concrete side effects: it sends emails, may send phone push after app install, and creates a НамериМиДом.bg account if absent. This is useful disclosure of persistent mutation, though it does not mention duplicate-subscription or cancellation behavior.

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 main behavior is front-loaded, and the trigger phrases and side-effect note earn their place. The bilingual Bulgarian repetition adds length but supports the local user base without obscuring the key 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?

For a 9-parameter mutating subscription tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential call context: main effect, delivery channels, account creation side effect, user info to collect, and trigger phrases. It leaves minor gaps such as how to map a prior search into the criteria and what to tell the user after a successful subscription.

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 description clarifies that name and email must be collected first and that the other parameters are the 'criteria' defining the saved search. However, with only 44% schema description coverage, it does not compensate for the undocumented filter fields (city, neighborhood, currency, transaction, property_type) beyond calling them criteria.

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 action: subscribe the user to a saved search, and defines the trigger behavior ('whenever a NEW listing matching these criteria appears') plus the delivery channel. This distinguishes it from sibling search/match tools: it is not one-off search (search_properties) or match checking (check_new_matches) but an ongoing alert subscription.

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 explicit when-to-use trigger phrases ('notify me', 'let me know when something new appears', 'keep looking for me') and a required precondition ('Ask for their name and email first...'). It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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