NDI-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 the data source size ('100,000+ closed commercial transactions') and a tier requirement ('agent_starter tier'), adding useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of results, which are important for a search tool with no output schema. The description does not contradict any annotations, as none are given.

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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the search scope and purpose, and the second adds critical usage guidelines and prerequisites. There is no redundant or verbose language.

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 complexity of a search tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like result format, limitations, or error handling. The high schema coverage helps, but without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as explaining what the search returns or how results are structured.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'state' or 'property_type' affect the search. It implies filtering for benchmarking but does not detail parameter interactions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds minimal value over the structured data.

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: searching a large database of closed commercial transactions for comparable data. It specifies the exact resource ('100,000+ closed commercial transactions') and verb ('Search'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on comp data for benchmarking price/SF or cap rates against actual recent sales, unlike tools like 'search_deals' or 'get_market_benchmarks' which may have different scopes.

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: to benchmark a deal's price/SF or cap rate against actual recent sales. It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires agent_starter tier'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose 'search_deals' instead.

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