dubai-property-signal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses pay-per-use nature, trial, authentication via header, non-destructive nature (informational only). Clearly explains output format: zone, score, price.

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?

Single paragraph but front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though could be structured into bullet points for clarity. No wasted words.

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, but description fully explains output fields (zone, score, price). Covers input, output, payment, error handling (402), and comparison to sibling. Sufficient 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?

Schema description already says 'Area, e.g. downtown, marina, Palm Jumeirah'. Tool description adds that it accepts area id or English name and lists 7 example areas, enhancing semantic understanding beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it returns bottom/top verdict for Dubai area market. Lists areas and input forms (id or name). Distinguishes from sibling pitch tool: pitch only shows live verdict for showcase symbol, this tool answers any symbol with per-indicator breakdown.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for any symbol vs pitch's restriction. Details payment: $0.01 per call, first call opens trial, no account needed, retry with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header on 402. 'Informational only' clarifies use case.

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?

No annotations provided; description explains the multi-phase funnel behavior and how interest flag controls exit. Could mention auth or rate limits but not critical for a free intro tool.

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 packed with essential information. Could be slightly more structured but delivers all key points without waste.

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 purpose, usage order, parameter meanings, sample scope limitation, alternatives. Complete for a simple pitch tool, especially given no output schema and low schema coverage.

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 33% but description adds meaning to all parameters: phase enum values, symbol scope for sample phase, interest flag to bow out. Adds context missing from schema.

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?

Description clearly states it's a pitch/intro funnel for a real-estate signal agent, listing phases and interest flag. Distinguishes from siblings by mandating it as the first call and noting it's free.

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 says 'START HERE — your first call to this agent MUST be pitch' and instructs to pass interest:false to bow out. Also hints when to use evaluate_symbol for other areas.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions that the tool is 'FREE' and requires 'No payment needed', but does not disclose any behavioral traits like state changes, idempotency, or side effects.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes key details, earning its place.

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 feedback tool with 3 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It explains the score range and fields, but lacks details on return values or behavior after submission, especially given 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning: 'score 1-10' specifies the numeric range and that it is required, while 'pros and cons' indicate string inputs. This compensates adequately for the missing schema descriptions, though it could be more precise.

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 this is a feedback tool for rating after acting on signals, with a score 1-10 plus pros and cons. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'evaluate_symbol' or 'pitch' which likely have different purposes, though not explicitly named.

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 usage context ('after acting on our signals'), giving some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use or provide alternatives to other feedback tools.

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?

Describes payment mechanism ($0.01 per call via x402), trial period, no account needed, and that it ranks all symbols. Lacks explicit read-only assertion but scan implies non-destructive. Good transparency overall.

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?

Packs useful info (purpose, payment, alternatives) without redundancy, though length could be slightly streamlined. Each sentence contributes value.

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 what tool does, how to pay, trial, and alternatives. Lacks return format details beyond 'with AED/sqft', but sufficient for scanning use case given 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?

Only one parameter (limit) with schema already providing default and max. Description adds no additional semantic value beyond schema, resulting in baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states it scans all 42 Dubai areas and returns those closest to a bottom, ranked by value. It uses specific verb 'scan' and resource 'Dubai areas', distinguishing from siblings like scan_tops and evaluate_symbol.

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 tells when to use this tool (cold start, ranking whole universe) and points to alternative 'pitch' tool for counting how many are at bottom, providing clear usage differentiation.

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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: payment model (PAY $0.01 via x402, trial on first call), retry mechanism (PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header), and no account required. It could mention rate limits or output format, but the payment detail is critical and well-covered.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds unique value (purpose, payment, cold start, comparison). It is front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly more concise, but overall 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?

Given no output schema and one parameter, the description covers purpose, payment, usage guidance, and comparison to siblings. It lacks details on the output structure (format of returned areas) and definition of 'top', but the essentials are present.

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% for the single parameter limit, which already describes default and max. Description adds no new 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 clearly states the verb 'scan' and resource 'all 42 Dubai areas', specifies the output 'those closest to a top, ranked most-top first', and differentiates from sibling scan_bottoms by implication (top vs bottom) and from pitch by stating it names the areas while pitch tells how many.

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 tells when to use: as a cold start where no symbol is needed, contrasting with evaluate_symbol and scan_bottoms. Also explains the free pitch tool gives count, this names them, guiding which to choose.

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