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 effectively describes the tool's function, output meaning ('High sell signal = motivated seller, potential to negotiate'), and a key constraint ('Requires agent_starter tier'), covering essential behavioral traits without contradiction.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, signal components, interpretation, and tier requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 (single input, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, the signal's basis and meaning, and a tier requirement. However, it lacks details on output format or error handling, which could be useful for an agent.

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 the single parameter 'listing_id' with its type and description. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or source details, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sell probability signal for a listed property'), including what the signal represents ('likelihood it transacts in the next 6 months based on days-on-market, ownership age, distress tier, and score'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on sell probability rather than market data, deal scoring, or searching.

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: for assessing sell probability of a property, with a prerequisite ('Requires agent_starter tier'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as when to use score_deal instead.

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