rightmove_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (20 per page), the specific fields returned, and implies a read-only listing operation. It does not mention error handling, auth requirements, or edge cases, but for a listing tool this is reasonably transparent. It adds value by describing the return payload and page size beyond what structured fields provide.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. There is slight redundancy (both sentences mention listing agents), but it is compact and organized. For the amount of detail (fields and pagination), it remains concise and scannable.

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?

For a simple listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It lists the returned fields and pagination, and the schema covers the parameters. It does not mention what happens with invalid locations or how to obtain all results beyond page iteration, but these are minor gaps for a directory-listing tool; the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with clear descriptions for both location (numeric ID from autocomplete) and page (default 1). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly noting the 20-per-page count. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the description need not repeat them; it does not introduce extra nuance that would elevate the score.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('Rightmove estate agents'), and a scoping condition ('for a location'). It further specifies the exact content of the listing (branch name, brand, address, telephones, sales/lettings flags, logo, and profile link) and distinguishes from the sibling rightmove_agent_branch by name and by describing a directory listing, not a single branch detail.

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 gives clear context: it is for listing estate-agent branches from Rightmove's directory for a location. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as rightmove_agent_branch (for a specific branch) or rightmove_search (for properties). The usage is implied by the content but not explicitly guided.

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