propertiesv2lookup_deprecated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'off-market property', hinting at a specific data scope, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only lookup, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or what 'deprecated' implies (e.g., limited support, alternative tools). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly noting the 'deprecated' status or key limitations, but it remains appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 complexity (a lookup with deprecated status, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, deprecation implications, and how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, but it falls short.

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%, with the 'id' parameter well-documented in the schema (including a default value and source context). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format constraints or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 the action ('Look for') and resource ('off-market property'), but is vague about scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify what 'look for' entails (e.g., retrieve details, check existence) or how it differs from siblings like 'propertiesdetail' or 'propertiesv3lookup'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity for clear differentiation.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'propertiesdetail' (likely for general property details) and 'propertiesv3lookup' (a newer version), the description offers no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., only for off-market properties). This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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