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 only mentions the output format option, failing to describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., property list details). For a complex search tool with 62 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 run-on sentence that awkwardly introduces the output format parameter. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks structure and clarity. While concise, the phrasing is slightly confusing (e.g., 'For a list of properties, you can select...'), making it less efficient than it could be.

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 complexity (62 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format beyond output type options, omits pagination behavior, and provides no context on search limitations or result structure. For a tool with such extensive filtering capabilities, more guidance on usage and outcomes is necessary for effective agent operation.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional output format, but it doesn't provide additional context like typical use cases for polygon searches or how parameters interact. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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: 'Search for filtered properties by polygon coordinates.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('properties'), and key constraint ('by polygon coordinates'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'search_coordinates_search_for_properties_by_coordinates' or 'search_search_for_properties_by_neighborhood_city_or_zip', which would require a 5.

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 mentions an optional output format parameter but doesn't clarify when this polygon-based search is appropriate compared to other search tools (e.g., by address, coordinates, or neighborhood). Without any context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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