Estimatiz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful non-annotation context: a report is created and saved, it is not search-engine indexable, it remains accessible to anyone with the link, and no name/email/phone is required. It does not mention whether repeated calls create duplicate reports or what auth is needed, so it is not fully complete, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 the main purpose and output summary, followed by report-creation and privacy details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the second paragraph could be tightened slightly and partly repeats what an output schema already provides.

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 six-parameter nested-object tool with low schema description coverage, the description covers the required basics but omits optional parameters and how to obtain the structured address object. It also does not explicitly route agents to the sibling search_addresses tool, which is likely needed to populate the address. With an output schema present, not explaining return values is acceptable, but the input-side gaps keep this from being complete.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the three required inputs (address, property type, surface) but says nothing about the optional rooms, rooms_mode, or location_fallback parameters, nor about the required nested address fields beyond 'adresse'. This leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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+resource: obtain a real-estate estimate for a property and create/save a report. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling search_addresses by focusing on estimation rather than address lookup. An agent can identify the tool's core function without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by saying 'sélectionnez son adresse, indiquez son type et sa surface', but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives or that the address must come from search_addresses. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the response can contain multiple addresses and the user selects their property from them. It does not cover pagination or matching semantics, but the safety profile is already annotated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core search action and then the result-selection behavior. Every sentence contributes and there is no redundant 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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter read-only search with annotations and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values or safety. It covers purpose and result multiplicity, but omits explicit usage relative to estimate_property and query format details.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter q. It only identifies q as a query ("correspondant à une requête") without format, examples, or matching rules. For one simple parameter, this is minimum viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 ("Recherche") and resource ("adresses connues d’Estimatiz") and adds that results are matched to a query. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling estimate_property, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies a query-driven address lookup but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention the sibling tool or any alternative. It offers no when-not conditions or routing help.

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