Property Comparable Sales MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (price statistics with breakdowns) and mentions default values and optional parameters, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it likely is).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by return details and scope. The parameter explanations are organized in a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., combining the scope mention with the purpose).

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 3 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and parameter meanings. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (rate limits, errors, etc.) and usage guidance relative to siblings.

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 description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what each parameter means: 'location' accepts postcode, ZIP code, or area name; 'market' is optional and auto-detected; 'months' is look-back period with default of 12. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify format constraints or valid ranges.

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 price statistics for a property market area' with specific details about what it returns (median, average, min, max prices with breakdown by property type) and scope ('Covers all 16 markets'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than listing markets or searching individual properties. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools in the description text itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (list_markets, search_property_comps). It mentions the scope ('Covers all 16 markets') but doesn't explain when this statistical analysis is preferred over listing markets or searching property comps. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or alternatives mentioned.

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