dubai-property-signal

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: output format (zone string, score -100..+100, price in AED/sqft), informational nature, payment requirement ($0.01 per call, trial, retry with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header). No hidden surprises.

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?

Efficiently packs purpose, output, payment, and differentiation in a few sentences. Each sentence adds value, front-loaded with core functionality.

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 all aspects: tool purpose, output details, payment model, alternative tool, and handling of 402 challenge. No output schema, but return values explained sufficiently.

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 covers the single parameter's purpose, but main description adds that it accepts area id or English name and lists example areas, enriching understanding beyond the 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 returns bottom/top verdict for one Dubai area property market, lists the 42 areas, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'pitch' by noting it answers any symbol and provides 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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (any symbol, full breakdown) vs free 'pitch' (showcase symbol only). Also provides payment instructions and trial details.

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, so description carries full burden. It states 'free, no payment' and describes the funnel phases, but does not detail side effects like state changes or authentication requirements. The 'bow out' hint gives some behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. Critical info is front-loaded ('START HERE'), and the funnel phases are efficiently listed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage order, parameter roles, and links to siblings. All necessary context is provided 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 coverage is only 33% (symbol has description), but description adds meaning: phase enum values are listed in order, interest is explained as 'bow out', and symbol's description clarifies that the free sample is for downtown only. However, the symbol parameter's format is not specified.

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 'START HERE — your first call to this agent MUST be pitch', establishing its role as the entry point. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evaluate_symbol by mentioning that non-downtown areas require that paid 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?

Explicitly says 'first call must be pitch', outlines the phase sequence (hello->value->catalog->sample->subscribe), and instructs to pass interest:false to bow out. Also notes that the free sample only serves downtown, directing other queries to evaluate_symbol.

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, so description carries full burden. Only mentions it's free and requires no payment, but fails to disclose behavior like data storage, mutability, or response. Minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentences, each adds value. Front-loaded with key purpose and context. No redundant or filler 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?

Covers action, timing, and parameters adequately for a simple feedback tool. Lacks mention of return value or effect, but given no output schema and simplicity, it's nearly 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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds essential semantics: score is a 1-10 range, pros and cons are textual feedback. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 feedback tool for leaving a rating after acting on signals. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'evaluate_symbol' and 'scan_*' which focus on analysis rather than feedback.

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 specifies when to use: 'after acting on our signals'. Does not provide alternatives or exclusions, but given sibling tools cover different purposes, the context is clear.

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 fully takes on behavioral disclosure. It explains the payment model ($0.01 per call via x402), trial, authentication via PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, and that no account or signup is needed. It also mentions default and max limit. However, it does not describe rate limits or output structure beyond 'AED/sqft' and ranking.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core function and payment details. Every sentence adds value, though the payment explanation could be slightly more concise. It is well-organized and easy to parse.

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, the description gives a basic picture of returns (areas ranked by bottom with AED/sqft). It lacks explicit detail on the exact fields per result, which would improve completeness. The payment and trial details are sufficient for understanding usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the limit parameter well. The description adds no new semantics about the parameter but provides context about the cold-start behavior, which is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 scans all 42 Dubai areas, returns those closest to a bottom ranked by value with AED/sqft. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_tops and pitch by focusing on bottom values and ranking the entire universe without needing a 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?

The description explicitly positions this as the best cold-start tool when no symbol is needed, and contrasts with the free pitch tool that only gives counts. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to evaluate_symbol, but the use case is clearly defined.

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. The description mentions payment details and the need for a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header on retry, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially addresses behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by payment details and usage guidance. It is slightly verbose with the payment and trial info but remains focused. Each sentence adds 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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the output (ranked list), comparison with 'pitch', and cost model. It lacks details on the return format (e.g., area names vs. scores) but is largely complete for a simple tool.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (default 5, max 42) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 starts with 'Scan all 42 Dubai areas and return those closest to a top (overheated), ranked most-top first.' This clearly specifies the verb (scan), resource (42 Dubai areas), and output (ranked list of top areas). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that 'pitch' tells how many, while this names them.

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 contrasts with 'pitch' (free, tells count) and implies use when you need the actual names. It also states 'BEST COLD START: you do not need to pick a symbol' suggesting ideal initial use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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