search_comps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The name 'search' implies read-only, but that's implicit at best.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, search criteria, and return information. No redundant or verbose text.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which partially mitigates return documentation), the description is incomplete. It does not cover all parameters, and lacks context on behavior, privacy, or data freshness.

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%, yet the description only mentions zip_code, building_class, min/max_sqft, and months. It omits price parameters, limit, include_stats, and bbl's special behavior is partially covered. With 10 parameters, the description adds limited meaning 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 clearly states the tool finds comparable property sales and neighborhood market statistics. It specifies search criteria (zip code, building class, size, time period) and return types (sales with price per sqft, quarterly trends), distinguishing it from siblings like search_neighborhood_stats.

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 concrete usage guidance: search by various filters and use of a reference BBL to inherit defaults. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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