Homechecker Guides

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds 'deterministic' and 'sourced' providing extra behavioral context. No contradictions. With annotations covering safety profile, 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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words, immediately conveys purpose and boundary. Front-loaded with key information.

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, description does not explain return format. But the tool is a checklist builder; the purpose is clear. Covers core function and exclusions. Could mention output type but not essential given simplicity.

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% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter-level details. Since coverage is above 80%? Actually 67% is below 80% but above 50%, baseline 3. No additional value from description beyond 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?

Clearly states it builds a deterministic, sourced checklist from the Homechecker guide corpus for buyer context, and explicitly distinguishes from analyzing listings or actual buildings. This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_guide' or 'search_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?

Specifies buyer context and explicitly states what it does not do (analyze listing, document, or actual building), giving clear when-to-use and when-not. Lacks explicit mention of alternative tools but the sibling separation is clear enough.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds context about the content domain and natural-language query but does not disclose additional behaviors like result format or limitations. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, no extraneous information. First sentence states purpose and domain, second clarifies scope. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Despite lack of output schema, the tool is a search function with clear domain. Description does not explain results format or parameter usage beyond basic intent. Adequate for a simple search but could provide more guidance on parameter combinations.

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 29%; only 'query' and 'jurisdiction' have schema descriptions. The description mentions 'natural-language question' for query but does not explain other parameters (era, cluster, buyingStage, propertyType, limit). Does not compensate for low 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?

Description clearly states the tool searches professionally authored Australian homebuyer guidance using natural-language questions. It specifies the domain (homebuyer guidance) and distinguishes from siblings like get_guide and list_guides by being a search tool.

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 lists when to use (general property, inspection, etc.) and states what it does not do ('does not assess an actual property'). Does not directly compare to sibling tools, 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.