find_comparable_sales

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

The description comprehensively covers side effects (read-only, idempotent), authentication (basic vs. API key), rate limits (10/day), error handling (structured errors), and data privacy. However, the mention of API key via environment variable conflicts with the api_key parameter in the input schema, slightly reducing clarity.

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), but contains some redundancy (e.g., behavioral details repeated). It remains focused and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains input semantics, behavioral traits, use cases, error handling, and rate limits, leaving no critical gaps for agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides full meaning for all parameters: sqft, bedrooms, property_type (enumerated values), location_tier (enumerated values), max_results (range 1-10), and api_key (optional). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it finds comparable recent sales for pricing analysis, with specific input parameters (sqft, bedrooms, property_type, location_tier, max_results). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like estimate_valuation and analyze_neighborhood.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections guide the agent. It advises use for structured analysis and warns against real-time decision-making without human review.

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