generate_listing

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

Despite no annotations, the description provides exhaustive behavioral details: side effects (read-only, no side effects), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. This goes well 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?

Well-structured with clear sections, but contains redundancy: the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections overlap significantly, repeating information about side effects, rate limits, and authentication. Could be more concise.

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?

Covers most aspects: parameter descriptions, behavior, auth, rate limits, error handling. Missing output format details (e.g., what the returned listing looks like) and no output schema, but otherwise thorough for a complex tool.

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 Args section describes most parameters with meaningful details (e.g., enum values for property_type and style). However, the 'api_key' parameter is missing from the description despite being in the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well but has a gap.

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 clearly states the tool generates a property listing. However, the 'When to use' section describes 'structured analysis or classification of inputs', which misaligns with the actual purpose of generating a listing, causing confusion.

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?

Has explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, but the 'When to use' is generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_neighborhood or calculate_mortgage. It also fails to mention alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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