Homechecker Guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the barrier is lower. The description adds useful context: the checklist is 'deterministic, sourced from the guide corpus', and explicitly states that it does not perform analysis of specific buildings or listings. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies expected behavior.

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 main action and scope. The second sentence clarifies limitations without wasting words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does enough by clearly stating the purpose, the source corpus, and non-goals. It could briefly mention the output format or how to use the buyingStage parameter, but overall the context is adequate for a checklist-generation 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 schema has 67% description coverage, with era, buyingStage, jurisdiction, and propertyType already described. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The limit and concerns parameters remain partially undocumented, but the description offers no compensation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('Homechecker guide corpus') and clearly defines the output as a checklist for a buyer context. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_guide, list_guides, search_guides) by emphasizing that it assembles a checklist rather than simply retrieving or searching guides.

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 a clear when-not condition ('does not analyse a listing, document or actual building'), implicitly distinguishing it from analytical or retrieval tasks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios where a sibling should be used, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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 indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful detail about the return value (source links, review metadata, method, limitations) without contradicting 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?

Two concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose; no 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?

As a read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content. It could mention error handling for missing slugs, but overall it's sufficient.

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 67%, and the description adds value for the slug parameter by clarifying its source. However, it does not expand on the format or sectionIds parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'one canonical Homechecker guide by slug'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_guides and search_guides which return multiple guides.

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 explicitly advises to use a slug from list_guides or search_guides, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, such as for browsing multiple guides.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful context that it returns only metadata, which aligns with annotations and clarifies the non-destructive, read-only nature.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the main purpose and listing filters concisely. Every part is essential.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description clarifies it returns metadata but doesn't specify what fields are included (e.g., title, ID, description). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent, though the tool is simple enough that it may be acceptable.

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 67%; the description lists the filter categories (jurisdiction, cluster, property type, era, buying stage) but does not add meaning beyond their names. For example, it doesn't explain what 'buyingStage' values mean or how to format jurisdiction. 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'published Homechecker guide catalogue', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guide (single guide) and search_guides (full-text search) by focusing on the catalogue listing with optional filters.

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 for browsing guides with filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_guides or get_guide, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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 and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds meaningful context: the tool searches 'professionally authored Australian homebuyer guidance' and explicitly does not assess an actual property, which sets expectations for what the tool can and cannot do beyond what annotations say.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action, provides a practical topic list, and ends with a critical exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and annotations, the description adequately defines scope and boundaries. It omits any mention of return format or result behavior, but since there is no output schema, some agents might benefit from knowing what the search returns (e.g., matching guidance documents). Overall it is sufficient for tool selection and invocation.

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 schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds 'natural-language question' and topic guidance, which reinforces the query parameter's intent. However, it does not clarify parameters lacking schema descriptions (limit, cluster), and the listed topics do not map tightly to the structured properties.

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 ('Search') and resource ('professionally authored Australian homebuyer guidance') with clear scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_guide and list_guides by emphasizing natural-language querying and explicitly noting it does not assess an actual property.

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 clearly tells when to use this tool ('Use this for general property, inspection, disclosure, apartment, condition, maintenance, era and buying-process questions') and provides a when-not-to-use by saying it does not assess an actual property. However, it does not name alternative tools for property assessment or other use cases.

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