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 that the process takes about a minute, returns a watermarked preview link and an unlock link. It also notes Florida resolves instantly and free. Missing details on failure modes, authorization needs, or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, including time estimate, output details, and use cases. No redundant or vague language.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct tool invocation. It explains the input choices, output (two links), time cost, and typical use cases. An agent can understand what to expect and when to use this 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 adds context about when to use address vs apn/state/county (e.g., 'Use this unless the user only has a parcel number'), but the parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed. The description does not add significant new semantics 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 clearly states the tool builds a cinematic 3D flyover listing from an address or parcel number, and distinguishes it from siblings (get_listing and get_pricing) which are retrieval tools. It lists specific property types (raw land, acreage, odd lots) making the purpose concrete.

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 explains when to use (properties where flat satellite photos undersell) and provides guidance on choosing between address and apn parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools/approaches, though the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or authorization requirements. A 3 is appropriate as it meets basic transparency but lacks additional behavioral context.

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 sentence of 20 words, front-loading the purpose and listing key outputs without any wasted words.

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 covers all relevant return fields (address, boundary found, render status, shareable links), which is complete for a simple lookup 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'listing_id' with a description. The tool description adds value by specifying that the ID is the one returned by create_3d_listing, which aids understanding 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 clearly states the tool looks up a listing by its ID and lists the returned fields (address, boundary found, render status, shareable links). It distinguishes from sibling tools create_3d_listing and get_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 the tool is for listings that already exist, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus create_3d_listing or get_pricing. The sibling names provide clear differentiation, but explicit guidance is missing.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses 'Free to call' (no cost, likely no rate limits) and describes the tool's output (pricing and plan inclusions). This is adequate for a read-only tool with no parameters and no side effects.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and when to use it. It covers the key return content (pricing and plan inclusions) and adds a usage hint. No additional information is necessary for an AI agent to use this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; it simply states the purpose. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so no additional value is required.

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 returns 'Current ParcelLaunch pricing and what each plan includes.' It uses the specific verb-phrase 'get' implicitly and distinguishes from sibling tools 'create_3d_listing' and 'get_listing' by focusing solely on pricing and plan details.

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 guides usage with 'Free to call — use it to answer any question about cost before recommending a plan.' This provides clear context and a recommended use case, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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