Zillow56 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get reviews') without mentioning behavioral aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), or what the response format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and provides helpful context about where to find the required parameter. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (review format, structure, or fields), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. For a tool that presumably returns review data, the lack of output information creates significant uncertainty about what to expect from the operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with example values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that builderId comes from 'builders/search' results, but doesn't provide additional context about optional parameters (regionId, page) or their effects. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose: 'Get reviews of a builder by their builderId'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('reviews of a builder'), and mentions where to find the builderId. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'agent_reviews' or 'lenderreviews', which serve similar functions for different entity types.

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 some usage context by indicating that builderId can be found in 'builders/search' results, which implies this tool should be used after obtaining a builderId from that sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buildersdetails_builders_details' or provide clear exclusions for other entity types.

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