RealEVR Estates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits: read-only ('details'), no auth implied ('public'), and that results are 'full' rather than a search summary. It says nothing about behavior on invalid/unknown ids, pagination, or errors.

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 zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the id provenance tucked into a brief parenthetical.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned ('full public details') and where the input comes from. Only failure behavior for a bad id is absent, a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 0% — the lone 'id' parameter is a bare integer with no description. The description partially compensates by identifying the id as a listing id obtained from search_properties, but adds no format or validity details beyond that provenance.

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), resource (one RealEVR Estates listing), and scope ('full public details ... by id'). The parenthetical naming search_properties makes its role distinct from that sibling's search behavior.

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?

'(from search_properties)' implies the id originates from a prior search, giving implied workflow context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or mention of alternatives such as real_estate_knowledge for non-listing info.

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 the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (places with counts) and implies a harmless read, but never states that it is read-only, side-effect free, or whether the counts are live versus cached. For a zero-parameter discovery tool the risk is low, so a mid score is fair.

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, zero waste, with the resource definition front-loaded and the usage cue second. Nothing is repeated from 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so concisely (countries and cities with counts). Combined with zero parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact response format and pagination remain unspecified.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there are no inputs to filter by, but adds nothing further on parameter semantics because there is nothing to add.

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 and scope: countries and cities where RealEVR Estates has listings, including counts. It is clearly a discovery/listing tool, distinguishable from get_property and search_properties, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Use to see where it can help before searching" gives a clear sequencing cue that positions it ahead of search_properties. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what to do after, but the intended moment of use is unambiguous.

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 the full burden. It usefully discloses provenance ('gathered from published reports'), recency ('recent'), and geographic scope (African countries), plus the citation requirement, but says nothing about coverage limits, freshness windows, or failure modes. Decent but not 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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler: scope and provenance first, usage trigger second, citation rule last. Fully front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 read-only knowledge-retrieval tool with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers what it returns (news/facts with named sources) and when to call it. The only real gap is that the undescribed 'question' parameter leaves input shaping to inference.

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 50%: 'country' is documented, 'question' is not. The description partially compensates by framing the expected input as a market or 'how does X work in <country>' question and implying country scoping, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that.

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 concrete resource (recent African real estate news and plain-language facts on buying, renting, property rules) sourced from published reports. It is clearly distinguishable from the property-listing siblings (get_property, search_properties, list_places), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use for market or "how does X work in <country>" questions,' plus an output-handling rule to always cite the named source. No when-not guidance or sibling comparison is offered, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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 the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: results are "real, currently available" (fresh inventory) and every result carries a `url` the agent should hand to the user. But it omits auth requirements, pagination/limit behavior, and error/empty handling for a 9-parameter search tool.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and when to use it. The "360° virtual tour" clause is mild marketing filler rather than actionable guidance, but overall the text is tight.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and middling schema coverage, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the key return field (`url`). It does not explain the unannotated parameters or result-volume/pagination limits, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 56%, with `type`, `limit`, and both price bounds undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by mapping natural-language terms ("flat", "house", "plot") onto the `type` enum and "in <place>" onto `location`, but adds nothing for limit or the price range parameters.

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 (Search) and resource (real, currently available homes) and enumerates the listing categories covered (rentals, furnished BnB, for sale, bank sales). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_property, so the 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?

"Use for any 'find me a flat / house / plot in <place>' question" gives a concrete triggering condition and even maps colloquial terms to the tool. No when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. get_property for a known listing) is provided.

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