Realty In Ca1 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this is a cached operation, the expected return format/structure, volume of data (pagination concerns), or if the keywords vary by user/region.

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?

Single sentence of seven words with no redundancy. Appropriately brief for a zero-parameter utility, though the brevity comes at the cost of explanatory detail regarding scope and usage context.

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 simple enumeration tool with no parameters, the description meets minimum viability by indicating the return concept (tags/keywords) and their purpose (filtering). However, it lacks output format details and domain scoping that would make it fully complete given the complex sibling ecosystem.

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 tool accepts zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (of nothing). Baseline 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification in 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 states the tool lists 'tags/keywords for filtering', identifying the resource type. However, given siblings handle distinct domains (agents, properties, locations), the description fails to specify which resources these keywords filter or how they relate to the other tools, leaving scope ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus querying specific resources directly. No mention of whether these keywords are required for filtering other endpoints or how they integrate with the sibling list operations.

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