compare_listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the comparison function and a recommended range, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if invalid IDs are provided, or any limitations on the input. This is a significant gap for a tool that still has side-effect expectations.

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 highly concise, with two short sentences and a one-line Args section. It front-loads the primary purpose and the only parameter, with no wasted words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 is simple with a single parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the main inputs. However, it lacks any mention of what fields are compared, returns, or edge-case behavior. Given the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for more context about the comparison scope.

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 schema provides only a list of strings with the title 'Listing Ids', but the description adds meaning by explaining these are 'RentCast listing IDs' and recommending a 2-10 count. This clarifies the expected format and purpose of the parameter, going beyond the raw 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 'Compare multiple sale listings side-by-side for easy evaluation', which identifies the specific verb (compare) and resource (sale listings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch details or search listings, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when you need to evaluate multiple listings by comparing them, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_listing_details or search_sale_listings. It does provide a practical usage guideline with the recommended 2-10 listing ID range, so the context is minimally guiding.

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