Find PropertyList agencies (estate agents) in a given Spanish area, ranked by how many active listings they carry there. Returns up to 10 agencies with name, location, listing count, and a public URL the user can visit. Use this after a buyer has narrowed in on an area and wants to know which agencies dominate it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| location | Yes | Place name (city, suburb, or urbanisation). e.g. 'Estepona'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety profile is clear. Description adds behavioral details: ranking by active listings, return limit (up to 10), and inclusion of a public URL.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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, description covers return fields adequately. Usage scenario is clear. Missing details like error handling or location validation, but overall complete for a read-only list 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 50% (location described, limit not). Description mentions 'up to 10 agencies' which implies the limit parameter but doesn't clarify which parameter controls it or that it can be changed. Adds some context but not full parameter semantics.
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?
Description clearly names the tool's purpose: find PropertyList agencies in a given Spanish area, ranked by active listings. It specifies the returned data (name, location, listing count, public URL) and distinguishes from siblings like 'area_market_summary'.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'after a buyer has narrowed in on an area and wants to know which agencies dominate it.' Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes. Some confusion possible between search_properties and find_properties_by_description, but descriptions clearly differentiate structured vs. free-form. Also area_market_summary vs verified_valuation both provide market data, but different types (asking vs notary). Overall well-differentiated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_contact, create_listing, find_contacts, get_property, list_agencies, log_note, search_properties, etc. Names are predictive and actions are clear.
14 tools is on the higher end of the ideal range (3-15) but appropriate for a property platform that covers both public MLS search and agency CRM functions. It could be split into two servers (public search vs. agency CRM) but still remains manageable.
Covers core flow well: location lookup, market context, search, property details, valuations, and agency CRM (contacts, listings, leads, notes). Minor gaps: no tool for updating a listing (create_listing only creates drafts), and no delete/update for contacts. But primary workflows are supported.
