Estimate a property's value (comparables)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the method (weighted median of nearby notarized sales, adjusted to current market level), the auditability (every comp and weight returned), and additional outputs (rent indicator, gross rental yield). It does not disclose potential limitations like data coverage gaps or precision caveats, but the core behavior is well described.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and method, then lists additional outputs. Every clause adds information: method, geographic scope, property types, auditability, and extra outputs. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main inputs, method, and outputs. It does not explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure of comps and weights) or edge cases like addresses without nearby sales, but the essential context for calling the tool is present.

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 75%, so the schema already documents address, surface_m2, and rooms. The description adds context that surface_m2 and type_local are key valuation inputs and that rooms refines the rent indicator, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for most parameters. The description's mention of 'precise French address' reinforces the address parameter's requirement.

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 states a specific verb ('estimates'), a precise resource (property value at a French address), and a distinctive method (weighted median of notarized sales with audit trail). It clearly differentiates from siblings like rent_estimate (rent indicator) and property_sales (raw sales data).

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 when to use it: for a valuation of a flat/house at a precise address, and it explicitly mentions the official rent indicator and gross rental yield, which distinguishes it from rent_estimate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other cases (e.g., property_sales for raw comps).

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