NDI-MCP-Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the data returned but doesn't mention critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling (e.g., for invalid state codes). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 ('Get a market summary for a state') and immediately lists the key data points. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration—every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 (aggregating multiple market metrics) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It specifies what data is returned but not the format (e.g., JSON structure), handling of missing data, or time range for the summary. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'state' as a '2-letter state code'. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid state codes or formatting requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('market summary for a state'), listing the exact data points returned (total active listings, score distribution, average cap rate, deal count by property type, and top submarkets). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_deal' (individual deals) or 'search_deals' (filtered searches) by focusing on aggregated market-level statistics.

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 prerequisites (e.g., state must be valid), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_market_benchmarks' (which might offer different metrics) or 'search_comps' (for property-level comparisons). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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