Build a Homechecker buyer checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying 'deterministic' (reproducible output) and 'sourced' (grounded in guide corpus), and explicitly states it does not analyse a listing or building, which sets correct expectations about the tool's non-analytic nature. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 compact - two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('deterministic, sourced checklist') and then add a clarifying disclaimer about scope. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The tool has 6 non-required params, no enums, and no output schema, making the description an important source of behavioral guidance. The description explains what the tool does at a high level but doesn't address how the parameters shape the output, what the return format is, or token/result expectations. It's adequate but leaves gaps for a parameter-rich, schema-poor tool.

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 67% (4 of 6 params have descriptions). The description itself adds 'deterministic' and 'sourced' framing that clarifies the checklist is derived from guides rather than being free-form, but it doesn't elaborate on parameter interplay (e.g., how concerns, buyingStage, jurisdiction, or propertyType combine). With moderately good schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') with a clear resource ('deterministic, sourced checklist from the Homechecker guide corpus') and context ('buyer context'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'assembles general questions and checks' and does not analyse a listing, document or actual building, which separates it from search/retrieval siblings like list_guides and get_guide.

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 usage context: it's for building a general checklist from the guide corpus, and clarifies it does NOT analyse a listing/document/building. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or give explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance beyond the negative statement about what it doesn't do. There's no comparison against list_guides or get_guide as alternatives.

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