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 indicates this is a read-only operation (listing markets) and specifies the output includes transaction counts and location examples, adding useful context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, such as data freshness or any access restrictions, which would be beneficial for a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all 11 available property markets') and includes essential details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It clearly states the purpose and output details (transaction counts and location examples), and since an output schema exists, it does not need to explain return values further. This covers the necessary context for a simple listing 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4. It effectively communicates that no inputs are needed, aligning with the schema.

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 specific action ('List all 11 available property markets') and includes what information is provided ('with transaction counts and location examples'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_area_stats' and 'search_property_comps' which focus on statistics and property comparisons respectively.

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 by specifying it lists 'all 11 available property markets,' suggesting it's for obtaining a comprehensive overview rather than filtered results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_area_stats' or 'search_property_comps,' missing explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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