Zillow56 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does (get details) and a prerequisite (username from search). It lacks behavioral context: what details are returned (contact info, credentials?), whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 essential context. There's zero waste—every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, parameter source, and prerequisite 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns detailed professional information. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the response structure, or any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, error cases). For a tool with rich expected output and zero structured coverage, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect.

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 the 'username' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the username comes from '/other_professionals/search' results, which provides context but no additional semantic detail about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get details of a professional by username'. It specifies the verb ('Get details'), resource ('a professional'), and key constraint ('by username'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'agent_details_by_username' or 'buildersdetails_builders_details', which likely serve similar purposes for different professional 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 clear context for when to use this tool: after finding a username from '/other_professionals/search' results. This establishes a workflow dependency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. agent_details_by_username for agents) or name alternative tools for different professional types.

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