MVR 19 Patras residences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the content is the site's llms.txt summary and is in English. It says nothing about caching, freshness, or size, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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 that front-loads 'What MVR 19 is' and then lists the covered topics. The parenthetical source/language note is slightly buried but not wasteful; every clause maps to actual returned content.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and the topic list does that reasonably well. It omits any indication of format or length of the returned summary, which is a minor gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is parameterless by describing a fixed, self-contained summary.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: the building, seven residences, prices, Golden Visa route and conditions, reservations, status, and developer. That is a concrete resource scope for the MVR 19 project. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_page or list_residences, so sibling differentiation 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?

There is no statement of when to use this overview versus alternatives such as get_page, list_pages, or search_pages. The agent must infer that this is the entry-point summary, but nothing in the text confirms that or excludes other 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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the return format (full page text rendered as Markdown), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 that front-loads what is returned and then how to identify the target. Nothing is wasted and no filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the input provenance and the returned payload, which is what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when a path is invalid or not found.

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 defines path. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the expected format (leading-slash paths like "/faq", localized variants like "/el/residences/b2") and the canonical source of valid paths (list_pages).

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 resource (one page) and return form (full text as Markdown) retrieved by path, which is clearly distinct from list_pages and search_pages. It does not explicitly say how it differs from get_overview/get_residence, but the singular-page framing is 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?

It supplies a prerequisite/context clue by saying the path comes from list_pages, and gives concrete path examples. It never states when to prefer this over search_pages or the other getters, so selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (data, room areas, status, full page text); it does not mention error handling for bad IDs, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the inline enumeration of all seven residence IDs partially duplicates the schema's examples.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, stating the ID domain and the returned contents is sufficient; only error/edge-case behavior is left unaddressed.

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 both parameters are documented (id plus an enum of language codes). The description restates the ID examples already in the schema and says nothing about the language parameter, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('get'), a single resource ('one residence'), enumerates the exact valid IDs (GF1, GF2, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1), and lists what is returned, clearly separating it from the plural sibling list_residences.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single residence by ID. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_residences, search_pages, or get_page, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., invalid ID behavior).

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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds scope detail (single site, single language, enumerated page set) but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or how large the response is – modest added value on top of 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with scope (every page, one language) and the returned fields before trailing into the page-type enumeration. The enumeration is longer than needed but does carry domain context rather than pure filler.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (path, title, description). For a read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented enum parameter, the only real gap is pagination or volume expectations.

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 enum already documents every supported language code and the en default. The description's "in one language" merely restates the parameter's role, adding no format or fallback detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific resource (every page of mav19-goldenvisa.com), a scope qualifier (one language), and the returned fields (path, title, description). That is enough to separate it from get_page and search_pages conceptually, though it never names those siblings explicitly to make the boundary airtight.

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?

"Every page ... in one language" implies the exhaustive-inventory use case and implicitly contrasts with search_pages, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use is ever stated. An agent must infer the routing decision rather than read 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the live-status vocabulary (Reservations open/Reserved/Sold), which is mild extra context, but nothing about pagination or return shape.

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 compact sentences with the resource and returned attributes front-loaded. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 exists, yet the description lists the returned attributes and status values, effectively covering return semantics. It omits nothing critical for a simple zero-required-parameter list tool, though it could note ordering or pagination.

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 both filters (status, min_bedrooms) are fully documented in the schema, including the enum mapping for 'available'. The description's generic 'Optional filters' adds nothing 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?

Clearly states the verb (list) and resource (the seven residences) and enumerates the attributes returned. It implicitly distinguishes from get_residence (singular fetch) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling listing 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?

'Optional filters' signals that filtering is possible but gives no guidance on when to use this list tool versus get_residence or other siblings, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that search is full-text and scoped to a single language, which is useful behavioral context. No pagination or relevance details are 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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs scope and return shape without waste. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 search with fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers search scope, return contents, and a follow-up tool. Missing only minor details like default result count and pagination.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description restates language scoping but adds no syntax, format, or ranking details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (pages) with scope (one language) and mentions return shape (best matches with snippet and path). It is clearly distinguishable from list_pages, but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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?

Implies usage through 'full-text search' and connects to get_page as a follow-up, which is helpful routing. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use search_pages versus list_pages or get_overview.

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