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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the auth requirement (user's Cotlet API key with access to this app) and the ordering guarantee (nearest comps first). Lacks any note on pagination or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and mode semantics efficiently. Slightly redundant: the first sentence and second sentence both restate 'comparable listings near a property,' which costs a little space.

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 no output schema and only 3 params, the description covers the essentials: what comes back per mode, result ordering, and the API key prerequisite. It's complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any return-shape or pagination detail if the mode results differ structurally.

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, but the description goes further by explaining what each enum value actually yields (occupancy/nightly rate vs monthly rent vs sold/listed prices), which is meaning beyond the schema's bare enum list. The limit and property_id params get no added detail, keeping it from a 5.

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) and resource (property comps) and clarifies that it returns comparable listings near one property, with the data fields included. It doesn't differentiate from mashvisor siblings like get_property_analysis or analyze_unlisted_property, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Explains clearly which mode to pick: short_term for Airbnb comps with occupancy/nightly rate, long_term for monthly rent, sales for sold/listed prices. It gives context for choosing a type but never names an alternative tool or states exclusions, so no routing between siblings.

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