ParcelLaunch — 3D property listings from an address

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the time required (~1 minute), return of a watermarked preview, and unlock link. However, it does not mention potential costs, quotas, or dependencies. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 four sentences, front-loading the main action and key details. It is mostly concise, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Florida resolves instantly and free' is already in the apn 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values (preview and unlock links). It does not cover potential errors, rate limits, or whether the same property can be processed multiple times. For a creation tool, these are notable omissions.

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% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying when to use address vs apn ('use this unless the user only has a parcel number') and that asking_price floats on the view. This meaningfully supplements 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to build a cinematic 3D flyover listing from a street address or parcel number. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_listing, get_pricing) by describing creation versus retrieval.

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 recommends use cases ('raw land, acreage, odd lots...') where a flat satellite photo is insufficient. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear and alternatives are not needed given sibling tools have distinct functions.

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 must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns specific fields, indicating a read operation. However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., invalid listing id), rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action ('Look up'), and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and return values. It lacks a mention that it is read-only, but overall completeness is high.

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 description already explains that listing_id comes from create_3d_listing. The description adds no further semantic details beyond the schema, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Look up' and explicitly states the resource (ParcelLaunch listing by id). It lists the returned fields, clearly distinguishing the tool from sibling tools 'create_3d_listing' (creation) and 'get_pricing' (pricing).

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 usage after creating a listing (references 'already created'), but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'get_pricing' or how it complements 'create_3d_listing'. No exclusions or prerequisites are 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'free to call' (no cost) and implies read-only behavior by stating it provides pricing info. However, it could explicitly mention no side effects or authentication requirements.

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: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It could be slightly more detailed about the return structure but is otherwise 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but this is acceptable as there is nothing to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 provides 'Current ParcelLaunch pricing and what each plan includes', with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('pricing'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_listing' by focusing on cost information.

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 'use it to answer any question about cost before recommending a plan', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. Also notes it's 'free to call', which aids decision-making.

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