HelpRent Da Nang

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

Annotations already establish the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool returns the full text and that the ID originates from search results, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling or response format. With annotations covering the safety profile, 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's essence without unnecessary words. It states the resource, the action, and the key parameter origin efficiently.

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 single-parameter fetch operation with read-only annotations, the description covers the essential use case. The absence of an output schema and lack of detail on errors or edge cases prevents a perfect score, but the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.

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 input schema only specifies id as a string, with 0% coverage in schema descriptions. The description compensates by explaining that the id is the one returned by search, giving the parameter meaningful semantics beyond its raw type. It does not provide format details, but the core meaning is clear.

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 identifies the tool as fetching the full text of a single rental listing by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_listing, which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls 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?

The description provides clear usage context by stating the id is 'the id that search returned,' implying this tool should be used after a search to retrieve full listing content. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic routing.

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 and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the filter condition but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens with missing parameters. Given the annotations, the incremental transparency is limited.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, though it may be slightly too terse given the number of parameters.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no explicit usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the page/page_size parameters or provide context on result limits or filtering nuances. Annotations cover safety, but not operational details.

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 compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only hints at 'district' as a filter, while 'page' and 'page_size' are entirely unexplained. The description fails to provide meaningful semantics for two of the three parameters.

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 resource (apartment buildings) and the two key conditions (with a manager, by district). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools at a high level, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast 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 implies the use case—when you need apartment buildings with a manager filtered by district—but does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavior beyond that: it indicates the response includes the full listing with its description, but it does not explain behavior for missing slugs, error handling, or data freshness.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'One listing in full, including its description.' It wastes no words, though it is more of a fragment than a complete sentence. It earns points for efficiency but loses some because it omits useful 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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool, and the description conveys the core return concept ('in full, including description'). However, with no output schema, no usage guidance, and no explanation of the slug parameter, the description is only minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'slug' parameter, but it does not. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, yet the tool description provides no guidance on what a slug is, where to find it, or formatting expectations.

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 title states the verb/resource ('Get one listing') and the description adds that it returns the listing 'in full, including its description,' which is clear and distinct from a search or aggregate operation. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but 'one listing' vs 'search_listings' and 'find_buildings' makes the purpose reasonably 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus search_listings, find_buildings, or market_stats. The phrase 'One listing in full' implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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 read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds 'recomputed nightly' and the fact that sample sizes back each figure, which tells the agent to expect shifting computed values. 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?

Two tight sentences with the main result front-loaded and the freshness warning in a short second sentence. Every clause adds distinct 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?

It describes the return content and refresh cadence well for a simple read-only stats tool, but the undocumented city parameter and the lack of any guidance about alternatives leave a real gap. No output schema means the description carries more of the burden.

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 has one undocumented `city` parameter with 0% schema coverage, and the description never mentions it. The title suggests Da Nang, but an agent cannot tell whether `city` filters results or whether omitting it defaults to a fixed market.

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 identifies the resource ('median rents by size and district') and enumerates its content, so it is easy to tell apart from listing/building tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns', which keeps it from 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?

The content implies this is for aggregate rent statistics rather than individual listings, and 'recomputed nightly' signals freshness, but it never states when to prefer it over search_listings or get_listing.

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 read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: up to 10 results, result fields (id, title, url), the absence of contact details, and the instruction to direct users to the url. This is useful context, though pagination and ordering behavior are not addressed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the tool's purpose, return shape, follow-up action, and a key caveat are all included. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-string-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers how to phrase input, what the response contains, what to do next, and a critical exclusion (contact details). An agent has everything needed to select and 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 0%, so the description must carry the weight for the query parameter. It defines the parameter as a 'plain phrase' and gives a concrete example ('2 bedroom apartment in Son Tra under 15 million'), which effectively conveys the free-text nature. It could be slightly more explicit that the phrase maps directly to the query field, but the intent is obvious.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('long-term rentals in Da Nang'), and a concrete example of the input phrase. It is clearly distinct from fetch/get_listing, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_listings, so it falls just 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?

Explains that the tool is meant for plain-phrase searches and tells the agent to pass an id to fetch for the full listing, which implies a natural follow-up action. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over search_listings or market_stats, but the usage context is clear enough.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns listing URLs, excludes contact details, and instructs the agent to send the person to the URL. This helps set expectations about the tool's output and limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope first, then adds the essential caveat about contact details. There is no filler or redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the key return behavior: listing URLs and no contact details. It could be more complete by addressing pagination behavior for page/page_size, but the core search-and-redirect workflow is well covered.

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 compensate. It does clarify the main filter parameters by naming city, district, type, bedrooms, and price, but it omits page and page_size and provides no value formats or allowed values. The compensation is partial.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('long-term rental listings in Da Nang'), and the filtering dimensions (city, district, type, bedrooms, price). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_listing, find_buildings, and market_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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent must infer that get_listing is for individual listing details and find_buildings is for buildings rather than rentals.

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