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. It mentions that it 'Get reviews', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results (hinted by 'page' and 'size' parameters but not explained), or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and provides a key usage hint without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and zuid sourcing, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, authentication) and doesn't explain the return values. This is adequate as a minimum viable description but could be more comprehensive.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (zuid, page, size) with example values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying that the zuid is 'found in `/other_professionals/details` result', which provides context for sourcing the zuid but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or semantics. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Get reviews' and the resource 'of a professional by their zuid', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'other_professionalsdetails_professionals_details' by focusing on reviews rather than general details, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'agent_reviews' or 'buildersreviews_builders_reviews' which might have similar functions 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 implies usage by specifying that the zuid is 'found in `/other_professionals/details` result', which provides context for when to use this tool (i.e., after obtaining a zuid from that sibling tool). However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'agent_reviews' or 'buildersreviews_builders_reviews', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the zuid requirement.

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