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. 'Get lender reviews' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (given the 'page' parameter), error handling, or the format of returned reviews. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key action and resource. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., review data format), how to handle the 'page' parameter for pagination, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool without structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 both parameters ('screenName' and 'page') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'screenName' represents or how 'page' is used). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 'Get lender reviews' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('lender reviews'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'lenderdetails' or 'lendersearch', which might also involve lender information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'lenderdetails' (likely for lender details) and 'lendersearch' (likely for searching lenders), there's no indication of when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for retrieving reviews specifically) or when to choose other tools. This leaves usage ambiguous.

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