refinery_list_properties

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by explaining the paid live-data path ($0.35 via x402) and the free cached-data path with no payment. It also clarifies the default behavior (live=true), which is important for cost-sensitive agents. It does not contradict 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 three short sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important operational distinction (live vs cache). Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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?

For a list tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the essential behavioral and cost information is covered. Missing details like explicit limit/response_format guidance are available in the nested schema, and the only notable gap is lack of guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling search tools.

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 names the key filtering dimensions (city, price) and provides important detail for the live parameter, including default and cost. However, it does not mention limit, response_format, or min/max price specifics, so it relies on the nested schema to fully document those. The cost context is a genuine addition beyond 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List scored properties') with clear scoping dimensions ('by city' and 'optional price filtering'). It conveys a distinct purpose relative to siblings like refinery_search_properties, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast 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 gives clear, actionable guidance on the critical live vs cache decision, including cost, payment requirement, and defaults. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over refinery_search_properties, but it provides enough context for the main branching decision.

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