get_property_intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that developerROI is a model output, not arithmetic, and disagrees with a build-to-zoning proforma, which is a significant limitation. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the 'Get' verb implies a safe read operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by output details and a critical caveat. The caveat about developerROI is essential and well-phrased, though slightly lengthy. Overall, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return fields and the data-quality caveat. It also connects to the sibling list_market_signals tool. It could be more complete by mentioning any other return values or error conditions, but the essentials are covered.

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 already describes the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying that the id originates from list_market_signals, providing cross-tool context that is not in the schema. This helps agents understand what id to supply.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed AI intelligence for a specific property' and lists specific outputs (teardown probabilities, flippability scores, comparable sales, developerROI). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by emphasizing it operates on a specific property and takes an id from list_market_signals.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires an id from list_market_signals, indicating a workflow. It also cautions against using developerROI for underwriting, which guides when not to rely on that value. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when to prefer this tool over siblings beyond the id source.

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