Search realestate.com.au listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses pagination limits ('up to 25 listings per page') and the return fields (address, price, bed/bath/car counts, land size, agency, agents, inspection times, auction dates), which is valuable context. It does not mention rate limits, error behaviors, or whether results are sorted, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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: the first states the main purpose, the second details the return value, and the third gives a usage prerequisite. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the most critical aspects: what it returns, pagination behavior, and a key prerequisite. However, it does not mention channel-specific parameter relevance (e.g., minLandSize for rentals) or the default channel, leaving some ambiguity for agents constructing sophisticated queries.

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 45%, so the description must compensate. It adds context about the result fields and pagination, which helps infer how parameters like maxPrice and minBedrooms affect results. However, it does not explain the semantics of several parameters with no schema description (e.g., excludeUnderContract, propertyTypes), though their names are self-explanatory. Overall, it partially compensates but not fully.

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 searches realestate.com.au for properties to buy, rent, or recently sold. The verb 'search' with the specific resource and the channel options (buy/rent/sold) make its purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_listing and resolve_location.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call resolve_location first when the user's location is vague or misspelled, which is a clear directive for when to use an alternative. However, it does not mention when to use get_listing (e.g., for retrieving details of a single listing), leaving that distinction implied by the name rather than explained.

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