estimate_valuation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by detailing read-only, stateless, idempotent behavior, rate limits (10/day free), authentication requirements, error handling, and data privacy. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Behavior, When to use/not, Behavioral Transparency) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it contains some redundancy (Behavior vs. Behavioral Transparency) and is somewhat lengthy, which slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

While the description covers parameters and behavioral details well, it omits the output format (what the valuation result includes, e.g., estimated value, confidence range). Given no output schema exists, this is a notable gap for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations.

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 0% description coverage (no JSON schema descriptions), so the description's parameter list with one-line definitions (e.g., 'sqft: Interior square footage') adds critical semantics. All 10 parameters are covered, though the descriptions are brief and lack example values or constraints.

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 first sentence explicitly states the tool estimates property valuation using comp-based methodology, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like analyze_neighborhood, calculate_mortgage, and find_comparable_sales which serve different purposes.

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 includes dedicated 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing context for appropriate usage (e.g., structured analysis) and a notable exclusion (not for real-time decisions without human review). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools to aid selection.

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