poptavkyNemovitosti, které GROO reality aktivně poptává pro své klienty. Použij, když někdo prodává nebo se ptá, jestli má o jeho nemovitost někdo zájem — je to opačný směr než hledej_nemovitosti.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only lookup of wanted properties and adds useful context about being the reverse of hledej_nemovitosti, but it never explicitly states that the operation is safe or describes the return shape. There is no mutating language, so behavior is inferable but not fully disclosed.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with usage direction. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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 zero-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what the tool returns (sought-after properties), when to invoke it, and how it differs from a sibling. Nothing critical for selecting and calling the tool is missing.
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 and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter contract to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully covers everything about inputs.
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 states a specific function: listing properties that GROO reality actively seeks for its clients. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool hledej_nemovitosti by declaring the opposite direction, so an agent can distinguish them immediately.
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 provides an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Použij, když někdo prodává nebo se ptá, jestli má o jeho nemovitost někdo zájem'. It also names the alternative tool and characterizes the relationship as 'opačný směr', giving clear exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list/detail pairs are separated by the detail_ prefix, and hledej_nemovitosti is explicitly contrasted with poptavky as the opposite direction. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a predictable pattern: plural nouns for lists, detail_<entity> for single items, and singular nouns for standalone content like kontakt, reference, and stranka. The pattern is slightly broken by hledej_nemovitosti, which uses a verb style rather than a noun.
Twelve tools is well within the ideal range for a real-estate website integration. Each tool covers a distinct public content area without unnecessary redundancy.
The toolset covers all relevant public surfaces of a real-estate agency site: offers, projects, articles, codebooks, contact, references, and static pages. For an informational read-only integration, no significant lifecycle operations are missing, and the search tool with optional filters avoids dead ends.