zillow_autocomplete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that results are normalized and may include semantic aliases and arrays, and it warns about preferring complete bounds metadata, which is useful for downstream search. However, it does not mention safety, error behavior, rate limits, or authorization requirements, which leaves some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 three sentences, each contributing meaningful information: what it does, what it returns, and a quality hint about candidates. There is no redundancy or filler, and the key action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description gives a reasonable overview, mentioning normalized candidates and specific fields like region_id and bounds. However, without an output schema, it does not fully specify the response structure or error cases, which would be helpful for an agent to know exactly what to expect. The mention of 'semantic candidates' and 'bounds metadata' may be cryptic without further definition.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the three parameters with descriptions for each, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; the note about preferring bounds metadata relates to output rather than input semantics.

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 function: 'Autocomplete Zillow locations' and specifies it returns normalized candidates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zillow_search, which performs property searches. The verb 'autocomplete' and resource 'Zillow locations' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining location candidates to feed into Zillow search, especially the note to 'prefer complete bounds metadata for Zillow search when present.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zillow_search or geocoding_search, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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