Realty In Ca1 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic function. It omits: return format/structure, suggestion limits, caching behavior, latency characteristics, or whether results are fuzzy-matched.

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 with zero redundancy. All words serve the purpose of defining scope and inputs.

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 presence of a similarly-named sibling tool and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the 'v2' distinction, what constitutes a 'suggestion', or how to interpret results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (Query, CultureId with enum mapping, IncludeLocations with example placeholder), so the baseline score applies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'auto complete suggestions' using specific location inputs (city, ward, street name, address). However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'locationsauto_complete', leaving ambiguity about which version to use.

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 the similar 'locationsauto_complete' sibling, or when to use specific parameters like 'IncludeLocations' versus the standard query flow.

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