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. It discloses that the tool returns recent sales with specific fields (price, date, etc.) and covers 16 markets, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, leaving behavioral gaps for a search tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by market coverage, return data, and parameter details. It's appropriately sized, but the parameter section is lengthy; however, each sentence earns its place by adding critical information given the low schema coverage.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, markets, returns, and parameter semantics. A slight gap exists in behavioral details like error cases or performance limits, but the output schema likely handles return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose, providing examples (e.g., location formats), listing market codes, specifying defaults, and detailing property type codes per market, effectively documenting all 6 parameters.

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 searches for comparable property sales near a location, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'comparable property sales'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_area_stats' and 'list_markets' by focusing on sales data rather than statistics or market listings.

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 context by listing the 16 covered markets and indicating it's for finding recent sales data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get_area_stats' or 'list_markets', missing explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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