Zillow56 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (despite a 'page' parameter), error handling, or what 'community cards' entail. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic retrieval.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful note about builderId sourcing. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'community cards' are, their structure, or the tool's return format. For a tool with three parameters and behavioral unknowns, this leaves the AI agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (builderId, regionId, page). The description adds minimal value by clarifying builderId's source ('found in `builders/search` results'), but doesn't explain regionId or page usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get community cards') and target resource ('of a builder'), specifying it retrieves community cards for a builder identified by builderId. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on builders' community cards rather than details, reviews, or other builder-related data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 by referencing where to find builderId ('found in `builders/search` results'), providing some context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like buildersdetails_builders_details or buildersreviews_builders_reviews, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the builderId requirement.

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