JIR Ventures Property Listings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get the full details' implies a safe read and signals that the return is a complete record rather than a summary, but there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown listing_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?

A single sentence with the operation front-loaded and no wasted clauses. Every element (one listing, by id, source of the id) earns 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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, this covers origin and scope adequately. The only gap is that 'full details' is not fleshed out at all, leaving the agent unaware of what fields to expect.

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% and the schema already documents listing_id as coming from search_listings with an example value. The description restates that origin but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get the full details of one JIR Ventures property listing') and scopes it to a single record via listing_id. Referencing search_listings as the source of the id distinguishes it from that sibling without needing the schema.

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 places the tool in a workflow: use it after search_listings, passing an id that search returned. It does not address the other sibling (request_viewing) or state when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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 exist, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the salient traits: this is an outbound communication to a third party (JIR Ventures), that party replies to the contact directly rather than through the tool, and only consented details may be sent. It stops short of describing retry/idempotency behavior, rate limits, or what the caller receives back.

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, front-loaded with the action before the payload and the consent caveat last. Slight redundancy between 'arrange a viewing' and 'get in touch about it', but nothing is wasted.

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 seven-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, recipient, and consent, but leaves a real ambiguity: it is unclear whether 'JIR Ventures replies to them directly' means the tool returns a confirmation to the agent or that contact happens entirely out of band. That, plus absent failure/retry behavior, is a meaningful gap for a fire-and-forget style call.

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%, so every one of the seven parameters is documented in the schema itself (including the 'empty if not given' convention for phone and preferred_time). The description only restates 'send the listing_id and the contact details', adding no format or constraint information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb-plus-resource formulation: it asks JIR Ventures to arrange a viewing or open contact about a specific property, sent with a listing_id and contact details. That is clearly distinct in kind from the read-only siblings get_listing and search_listings, though those siblings are never named and the boundary is left implicit.

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 says explicitly when to use it: when someone wants a viewing arranged or wants to be put in touch. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so an agent must infer that this is the escalation path after get_listing/search_listings rather than something the description tells 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the hardcoded geography and inventory scope, the freshness claim ("currently has available"), and enumerates every returned field. What it omits is result-size behavior — "every property" plus no parameters implies an unfiltered, potentially large result set, but pagination, truncation or ordering are never mentioned.

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 in a sensible order: what the tool returns, what each record contains, then what to do with the identifier. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema to document the shape.

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 parameterless list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, record shape, and next-step routing — enough for an agent to call it correctly. The remaining gap is expectation-setting about result volume and ordering, which matters for a query that returns an entire inventory.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It could have strengthened the point by explicitly stating that no filtering arguments exist, but the schema is unambiguous.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a precisely scoped resource: every available property for one named agency across two named geographies, restricted to offices/homes for rent or sale. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_listing (detail) and request_viewing (action) by naming them as downstream consumers.

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 final sentence gives an explicit workflow: take a listing_id from these results and feed it to get_listing or request_viewing, which routes the agent correctly among the three siblings. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that there is no way to filter by district, price or deal type, which would be the key 'when not to use' caveat for a zero-parameter search tool.

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