Meadley Bros. property-picked mailing lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: no API key or cost, and the response includes the count, a purchase price, and a one-step buy link. It does not disclose rate limits or how ambiguous locations are resolved, keeping it short of a 5.

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 waste: the first front-loads what is counted and how, the second covers the free/no-auth trait, the third covers return values. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 states the return payload (count, price, buy link), and it covers auth/cost. Parameters and location alternatives are fully documented in a 100%-covered schema. What is missing is edge behavior - e.g. what happens with an unmatched or oversized area - which keeps it at a 4 for an 8-parameter, open-world 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining that 'trade' drives property-signal inference rather than plain address filtering, which gives the enum real semantic weight. Location parameters (zip/city+state/lat+lng) are fully described in the schema and not restated, which 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 and resource: count households in a service area matching a contractor's trade, with the distinctive detail that matching is judged from property signals (canopy, slope, lot size, pool) rather than addresses. An agent can tell this is a scoped counting step, but the description never names the siblings preview_market or start_checkout, so differentiation is left to inference.

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: 'Free, no key needed' plus returning 'the price to buy' and 'a link where the user can buy the list' sketches a qualify-then-buy funnel, which hints at when this precedes start_checkout. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must reconstruct the workflow.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: authentication requirements, where members create API keys, what output data is exposed, and how strategyIds feed back into subsequent calls.

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 compact: one dense sentence describing the return payload and strategy narrowing, followed by a short authentication note. It is somewhat run-on but front-loads the core result and contains no obvious 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?

Given nine parameters, rich schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does enough by explaining the returned count, strategy cards, and property signals. It also covers the API-key requirement and strategyIds reuse, though it leaves the choice between sibling tools implicit.

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 parameter meaning is already well documented. The description reinforces the strategyIds workflow and narrowing behavior, but does not add much beyond the schema and does not mention recipientMode or the location alternatives.

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 what preview_market returns: a measured count, strategy cards, and measured property signals for a trade and area. It is specific enough to distinguish this preview/strategy-selection operation from a simple count, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling 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?

It gives useful context that strategyIds can be sent from a previous preview_market answer to narrow results, and states the API-key prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of count_homes or start_checkout, nor when not to use 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 only flag readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds the material facts the agent actually needs: no card handling, a Stripe-hosted payment URL, a 1000-address/$349 floor, and the API-key requirement with where to obtain one. That is auth, output mechanism, and cost in one paragraph – well beyond the annotation bar.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then price floor, then auth, then the when-to-call rule. Six short sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact with no repetition of the 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?

For a 12-parameter purchase tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what's missing structurally: the return value (Checkout URL), the payment handoff, cost floor, and auth prerequisite. An agent has enough to call it correctly and to explain the flow to the user.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful linkage: the minimum quantity ties to the 1000-address/$349 floor, and 'up to the count' implies checking availability via count_homes before buying. It doesn't touch the location parameters (zip/city/state/lat/lng) or recipientMode, which the schema carries alone.

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 and deliverable: start buying a mailing list of matching homes, delivered as Excel plus CSV, returning a Stripe Checkout URL. It's unmistakably a purchase-initiation tool. It doesn't name the siblings (count_homes, preview_market) explicitly, but the word 'buying' and the checkout return make the distinction inferable.

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?

'Only call this when the user has clearly asked to buy' gives an explicit gating condition and implicitly separates it from counting/previewing. It also clarifies the agent's role in the payment flow ('the user opens it and pays there'). It falls short of a 5 because it never names the alternative tools an agent should reach for first.

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