realtime_zillow_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does clearly define a dispatcher-style API with operation names and required params, but it does not disclose response shape, data freshness, pagination, or the ambiguity of property_details having no required params. This leaves some behavioral uncertainty.

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 well structured: an intro summary, a bulleted operation list, and a brief when-to-use line. Each operation line is terse and informative, though a little repetition (e.g., 'Search' after 'search') could be trimmed.

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 multi-operation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers operation selection and required parameters well, but it omits return-value details and leaves property_details/no-required-params and the promised 'market trends' under-specified. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 schema only provides generic args and an operation enum, so the description carries the burden of documenting per-operation required params. It lists each operation's required args (e.g., long, lat, polygon, zpid), which is essential and effective. It does not, however, provide types or formats for these values, keeping it from a 5.

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 opens with 'Zillow real estate data' and enumerates concrete operations (search, property_details, zestimate, agent_search). It clearly identifies the tool's scope and explicitly differentiates from the sibling real_time_redfin_data by naming it in the 'When to use' section.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states 'Use for Zillow' and directs Redfin listing use to real_time_redfin_data. This is direct, actionable guidance that names an alternative tool, which is exactly what this dimension asks for.

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