Kopp Real Estate München

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact fields returned ('Titel, Objektart, Ort, Preis, Fläche, Zimmer, Status und den Link zur Angebotsseite'), the default behavior without filters, and the boundary that it only searches publicly marketed offers. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's scope, the second lists the output fields, and the third provides the fallback alternative. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it lists the return fields and explains the search scope and the off-market fallback. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but given the schema documents the limit parameter, these are minor gaps. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., ort, limit, nutzung, objektart). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does mention that filters are optional ('Ohne Filter'). This is consistent with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Durchsucht' – searches) and resource (the publicly marketed offers of Kopp Real Estate), and explicitly defines scope (München und Umland, Wohnen und Gewerbe, Kauf und Miete). It differentiates from siblings by naming kopp_suchprofil_hinterlegen as the alternative for off-market properties, and the other siblings (valuation, prices) are clearly distinct.

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 gives clear context: it searches public offers, and explicitly says 'Ohne Filter werden alle Angebote geliefert' (without filters all offers are returned). It also provides an explicit alternative: if nothing fits, use kopp_suchprofil_hinterlegen for off-market matching. However, it does not contrast with kopp_bewertung_anfragen or kopp_immobilienpreise_muenchen, though their purposes are self-evident.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that no automatic estimate is generated, Kopp contacts the owner personally, and consent is required, with a privacy policy link. This adds significant behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the process, then usage guidelines. It is concise, includes necessary warnings (consent, no automatic estimate), and contains no 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?

The description explains the workflow, including consent and the outcome (Kopp contacts the owner). It does not specify what the tool returns to the caller (e.g., a confirmation), but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, the behavior is clear.

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 the schema already explains all 11 parameters. The description reinforces the consent parameter requirement but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 clearly states the action: sending a request for a free market value determination to Kopp Real Estate. It specifies the resource (Kopp Real Estate) and the verb (sendet eine Anfrage), and clarifies the process (no automatic estimate, personal contact), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search offers, prices, or store profiles.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only call if the user explicitly wants it, and mandates showing details and obtaining consent before transmission. It also states the condition that without consent nothing is transmitted. It does not mention alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus siblings.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: data comes from listings, not notarized transactions; sub-districts are mapped to their parent district; if a location is not in the dataset, nothing is estimated. This fully discloses limitations and data provenance.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and each sentence contributing distinct value (data content, data source, scope, fallback behavior, and alternative tool). No redundancy or 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?

For a read-only market data tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what data is returned, the source, the mapping behavior, and when to use an alternative. An agent can call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that sub-districts like Haidhausen, Solln, or Pasing are automatically mapped to their respective city district, and that 'München gesamt' gives city-wide values. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 it delivers market data from Kopp Real Estate for a Munich district or the whole city, listing the specific metrics (offer price per sqm, rent, yield, multiplier) with date and source. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it is not for individual property assessment and points to kopp_bewertung_anfragen.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is for aggregated market data, not individual property evaluation, and directly tells the agent to use kopp_bewertung_anfragen for personal assessments. It also clarifies the data basis (listings, not notarized prices) and that unknown locations are not estimated.

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?

Beyond annotations (openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses real-world behavior: Kopp matches against public and non-public offers and contacts the user. It also states that nothing is transmitted without explicit consent, which supplements the sparse annotation data. No contradiction found.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then consent. It is slightly repetitive around consent (three sentences making the same point), but every sentence contributes actionable information and there is no 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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description supplies the key missing behavioral context: external matching, off-market listings, notification, and privacy/consent. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool responsibly, though it does not describe the confirmation or response the user should see.

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 and the description is not required to re-document params. It adds some context that the consent boolean is a hard prerequisite and that 'Kauf oder Miete' maps to the vermarktung enum, but it does not add per-parameter meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and object: it registers ('hinterlegt') a search profile at Kopp Real Estate for purchase or rent. It then explains the profile is used for matching against new and off-market listings, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like searching listings or requesting valuations.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('Nur aufrufen, wenn der Nutzer das ausdrücklich möchte') and a hard prerequisite: show the entered data and obtain consent before any transmission. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer them, but the consent and invocation guardrails are clear.

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