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. While 'Search for' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address pagination behavior (despite a 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details like behavioral traits or usage context, and the missing space in 'Searchfor' slightly affects readability.

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 complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of builders with basic info), how results are ordered, pagination details, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 three parameters ('location', 'name', 'page') documented in the schema. The description mentions 'location or name' which aligns with two parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, search logic, or how 'page' works). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('builders'), and specifies the search criteria ('by location or name'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_for_agents' or 'other_professionalssearch_search_for_professionals', which appear to perform similar search 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'buildersdetails_builders_details' for detailed information or 'buildersreviews_builders_reviews' for reviews, nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for searching builders versus other professionals.

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