trazimstan.hr — nekretnine u Hrvatskoj

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only but doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or response format. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Compact and efficient.

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 low complexity, high schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how it relates to siblings. Missing some behavioral context holds it back from a 5.

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% with a meaningful description. The tool description adds minimal value by echoing that the ID comes from 'search'. Baseline 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 tool retrieves the full text of a single listing by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the 'search' tool as the source of IDs.

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 says to use it 'before citing a listing' and implies usage after 'search'. No exclusions or alternatives, but adequate for this simple tool.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing ID, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of behavioral traits.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the simple structure (one parameter, no output schema), the description suffices for a minimal understanding. However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, or any additional context. It is adequate but not thorough.

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% (one parameter 'id' with a description that includes an example UUID). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and there is no extra value from the 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 the action ('dohvaća detalje' = retrieves details) and the resource ('pojedinog oglasa po ID-u' = single listing by ID). It also specifies the identifier format (UUID). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get_price_stats'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description describes only what it does, not the context or prerequisites. Sibling names imply different use cases, but the description itself offers no direction.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the source, that the data is from current listings, and that it's not official market stats. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, though for a read-only statistics tool this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences plus a key note, all front-loaded with the main action and usage examples. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description adequately states what it returns (median price and price per m²). It could specify the output format or units, but for a statistics tool with three parameters and clear sibling differentiation, it is largely 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?

The description adds context for 'city' (optional) and 'propertyCategory' (examples for land and apartments) but does not explain the 'transactionType' parameter. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented 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 explicitly states that the tool returns median price and price per m² for property types and optionally by city, using actual listings from trazimstan.hr. It provides specific use-case examples and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (which deal with individual listings or searches).

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 example queries and an important caveat (not official statistics, mention sample size). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for different needs.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool accepts queries and returns listings with URLs, but it does not explicitly declare it as read-only or disclose any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the input format, provides examples, and summarizes the output. It fully covers the necessary context for selecting and using the 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?

The single parameter 'query' is described in the schema as a natural-language search query, and the description adds concrete examples, which enhance understanding. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema by illustrating usage patterns.

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 states it searches Croatian real-estate listings on a specific site, accepts natural-language queries, and returns matching listings with URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch and get_listing by specifying the search context and query format.

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 via natural-language queries and provides examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_listings, which may have similar functionality. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool searches and returns links, but does not mention behavior like pagination, error handling, rate limits, or any destructive aspects. This is adequate for a straightforward search tool but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the primary purpose and returning value. Every sentence adds essential information without 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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality but omits details on result ordering, pagination, or multi-city search limits. It is adequate for basic use but leaves some behavioral aspects undefined.

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?

With 91% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the context of parameters (e.g., maxPrice meaning differs for rent vs sale, property categories like 'stan' for apartment). It does not simply repeat schema definitions.

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 states it searches property listings for rent or sale in Croatia, specifying the property types (apartments, houses, land, commercial) and that it returns links to trazimstan.hr. This distinctively sets it apart from sibling tools like 'get_listing' or 'get_price_stats'.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating the tool's purpose and scope (Croatian real estate ads for rent or sale). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, the context of siblings makes it clear that this is the appropriate tool for property searches.

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