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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: per-row error isolation ('one bad target never fails the whole call'), timeout/bridge_down semantics with retryable flags, concurrent fan-out, an overall deadline that converts unsettled rows to pending, and the always-populated extracted_features. No contradictions with 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place — nothing is filler. However, the bridge-timeout sentence is overloaded with status literals, retry advice, and an internal 'issue #73' reference, and 'retryable: true' appears twice. Dense and purposeful but slightly over-packed.

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?

With no output schema, the description must document return values and does so thoroughly: exact row shapes for success, error, timeout/bridge_down, and pending states, a top-level pending count, concurrency, deadline behavior, and per-row field defaults. Combined with fully documented parameters and sibling differentiation, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this complex bulk tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already rich (maxItems 200, batching advice, include_description default). The description adds value above that baseline by stating targets accept the 'same url / listing_id_sha shape as compass_get_property,' which lets an agent transfer parameter knowledge across tools, and by reinforcing the include_description default. Genuine added value, though the schema does most of the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Fetch up to 200 Compass listings in a single call.' It further differentiates from siblings by saying 'no side-by-side summary table — use compass_compare_properties for that' and cross-references compass_get_property as the shape-compatible single-fetch variant. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without reading the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance by routing the comparison-summary use case to compass_compare_properties. It also gives actionable retry policy: rows with status 'timeout'/'bridge_down' should be retried 'rather than concluding Compass has no record,' and pending rows should be 're-run just those targets' — clear when-to-call and when-to-retry guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds helpful behavioral context: it performs no network access, duplicates zillow/redfin math, and returns a price, constraint, and PITI breakdown. No contradiction with 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?

Four tight, information-dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value—inputs, outputs, equivalence to external tools, and network behavior—with no filler.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, algorithm rule, return values, and execution constraints. Minor gaps are the units/formats for interest_rate and property_tax_rate, but the standard-rule framing makes the calculation behavior sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by translating most parameters into plain language: monthly income, recurring debts, down payment, interest rate, and optional tax/insurance/HOA/term. It omits explicit mention of the front_end_dti and back_end_dti override parameters, but these are fairly self-explanatory from the 28/36 context.

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 names a specific operation—'Solve for the maximum home price you can afford under the standard 28/36 DTI rule'—with a clear resource and output. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling compass_calculate_mortgage.

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 when to use it: when an affordability figure is needed and when pure local math is preferred ('No network — pure local math'). However, it never names an internal alternative or says when not to use it, leaving the choice vs. compass_calculate_mortgage to inference.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool is local-only and makes no network call, and that PMI is applied automatically when LTV > 80% and pmi_rate is provided. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint 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 focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently explains the key parameter combinations and defaults that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains both the return value (full PITI breakdown plus total interest) and the important input constraints. Minor details like the loan term default and exact handling when both down payment options are supplied are left to the schema and defaults, but overall the description is sufficient for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is only 40%, but the description compensates by explaining key relationships: down_payment and down_payment_percent are alternatives with a 20% default, property tax can be expressed annually or as a rate, and PMI behavior depends on LTV and pmi_rate. It does not describe every parameter, but the most decision-relevant semantics are covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'mortgage payment calculator' that returns a full PITI breakdown and total interest. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like compass_calculate_affordability and search tools by its local-only, calculation-focused purpose.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: when a PITI breakdown and total interest are needed. It also provides concrete input-selection guidance (either down_payment or down_payment_percent, property tax alternatives, automatic PMI). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear.

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

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by disclosing concurrency, an overall deadline, per-target error isolation, the pending row shape with retryable flag, and the sha-only redirect behavior. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 dense but every sentence carries new information: response shape, error semantics, defaults, opt-in flags, and retry behavior. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics. It does: full per-property records, extracted_features, per-row error capture, pending row shape, top-level pending count, and default omissions. Combined with deadline and retry guidance, the agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 already covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra nuance: sha-only targets fetch /listing/<sha>/view and redirect, and the boolean parameters affect response contents and weight. That is value beyond the schema, though not every parameter needed additional clarification.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch 2 or more Compass properties and align their facts side-by-side.' The '2 or more' minimum distinguishes it from single-property tools like compass_get_property, and the schema note about compass_bulk_get further disambiguates it from the unbounded sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance: side-by-side comparison of 2–25 properties. It also explains how to handle partial failures ('re-run just those targets'), and the targets schema explicitly routes unbounded structured fetch to compass_bulk_get, providing an explicit alternative.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: closed_deals is omitted by default to keep the payload lean, compact view strips image/avatar URLs, full returns Compass's payload untouched, and there is deliberately no field projection because the server has no verified record of which fields matter. This is rich, honest behavioral context and does not contradict any annotation.

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 long but every section earns its place: core fetch, returned shape, closed-deals behavior, view behavior, and chaining guidance are all clearly labeled. The key information is front-loaded, and the internal headings make it easy to scan without losing density.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the responsibility of explaining the response shape, and it does so concretely: { agent: {name, slug}, active_listings: [...] }, normalized fields, closed_deals, and the listing_agent.profile_slug chaining path. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description goes further by explaining the relationship between slug and profile_url, the exact response effect of compact vs full view, and the normalized shape of closed_deals. It also clarifies that one of slug or profile_url is required, adding meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Fetch the listings represented by a Compass agent from their profile page (/agents/<slug>/)." It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming compass_get_property and compass_search_properties and explaining how the agent slug appears in each, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 actionable usage guidance: pass either slug or profile_url, both are accepted, and the closed-deals payload is opt-in via include_closed. The CHAINING section explicitly explains when to use this tool relative to compass_get_property and compass_search_properties, including the note that compass_search_properties results don't carry the listing agent.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHInt annotations, the description discloses the WAF 403 workaround, all three resolution rungs, the candidate verification rule, the stable _pid/ versus fallback _lid/ URL behavior, and the distinct auth_required error shape. This gives an agent unusually complete knowledge of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 long but front-loaded with the central purpose and then logically organized by fallback rung, verification, return values, and error cases. It is slightly redundant with the annotations at the end and includes internal issue IDs that are informative but not essential, so it is not perfectly concise.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return object, the possible matched_via values, the no-match error shape, and the auth_required error case with retry guidance. Combined with the fully documented input schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the address/city/state/zip/view parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds free-text semantics for the address and clarifies output fields, but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence is specific: it resolves a free-text street address into a Compass listing's canonical URL and identifiers, which clearly distinguishes it from a generic search or retrieval tool. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name or differentiate against the sibling compass_resolve_addresses tool.

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 clearly states the intended use case: resolve one free-text street address in a single call, including which fallback strategies will be tried. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or point to batch alternatives like compass_resolve_addresses, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds real behavioral detail: it lifts city/state/zip from the homedetails page, searches the type-rental filter in the same locality, describes returned fields, and explains the empty-result contract with rentals: [] and preserved locality. The 'Read-only; safe to call repeatedly' statement is consistent with 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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences: use case first, then mechanism and output, then empty-result behavior and safety. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers the core invocation path, output fields, and empty-result behavior well. It is missing an explicit statement that at least one of url or listing_id_sha should be supplied, and it does not address error cases, which prevents a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining how the url parameter is processed (locality lifted from the homedetails page) and how the locality search is scoped. This complements the schema's per-parameter descriptions with useful behavioral context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Surface nearby rental listings for a Compass property' and immediately adds the STR-viability use case. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like compass_compare_properties or compass_search_properties, which serve other comparison or search needs.

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?

It provides a clear context for when to use the tool: evaluating short-term-rental viability in vacation markets for a target Compass property. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative sibling tools for general property search, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the three-array return shape, the normalized schema, the redirect behavior for sha-only calls, and a statement that it's safe to call repeatedly. No contradictions with 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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose and output structure first, parameter guidance second, sibling differentiation and safety last. There is no fluff or repeated tautology.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (three arrays), how they relate, the merged schema shape, parameter behavior, and when to choose it over a sibling. Nothing needed for correct invocation is left ambiguous.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between the two parameters ('Pass either... alone'), why url is preferred, and the internal redirect behavior, going beyond the schema's wording.

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-resource combination ('Full listing history for a Compass property') and enumerates the event types and arrays returned. It also explicitly contrasts itself with compass_get_property, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool (compass_get_property), explains that most data is already available there, and gives the precise condition for using this tool instead ('when you want the merged + normalized timeline'). It also clarifies which parameter to pass and the behavior of sha-only calls.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals important behavior: /listing/<sha>/view redirects to the canonical homedetails URL, lot_size_acres is derived and null (never 0) for condos, extracted_features is keyword-parsed from the description, the raw description is omitted by default, and sha-based URLs go stale across re-listings. This is substantial behavioral disclosure that helps an agent predict side effects and output quirks.

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 long but every paragraph earns its place: it covers inputs, output content, derived fields, default behavior, and URL-form stability. The content is structured into clear sections, and the most important usage facts are front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler or repetition is present.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a strong job of listing the returned fields and their semantics. It also covers parameter combinations, redirect behavior, defaults, and the stable vs. stale URL distinction. An agent has enough information to select, invoke, and interpret the result of this tool without guessing.

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?

Although the schema already describes all three parameters, the main description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: url and listing_id_sha are alternatives with one required despite schema having no required fields, the sha-only path triggers a redirect, include_description controls raw marketing copy while extracted_features is always populated, and the derived lot_size_acres field is explained. This goes far above the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a property's full Compass record.' It clearly enumerates the accepted inputs (url or listing_id_sha) and the return fields, and it distinguishes itself by tying its url input to compass_search_properties results. This gives an agent unambiguous clarity about what the tool does.

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 strong usage context: pass url when you have it, listing_id_sha is sufficient alone, include_description defaults to false, and the tool is read-only and safe to call repeatedly. It also explains the crucial _lid/ vs _pid/ distinction and advises which URL form is appropriate for current reading versus long-lived references. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like compass_get_by_address or compass_bulk_get, so the tool-selection guidance is not fully explicit.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: sha-only calls fetch a view that redirects, default category filtering is 0, and non-photo media can be included via a flag. It also confirms the return shape and that the tool is safe to repeat, matching the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then result contents, then parameter alternatives, then default/filter behavior, then return shape. The description is compact yet information-dense with no filler.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the returned object shape, image URL fields, parameter alternatives and defaults, and the redirect behavior. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the relationship between `url` and `listing_id_sha`, the internal redirect behavior for sha-only calls, and the meaning of category 0 in the default filter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'The full photo gallery for a Compass listing — every image in listing.media[]'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like compass_get_property or compass_search_properties, which serve broader property/search purposes.

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 invocation details, such as passing either `url` or `listing_id_sha` and the `include_all_categories` option. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like compass_get_property or when not to use it, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds crucial runtime behavior: the tool throws a clear error explaining the limitation and identifies the root cause (auth-scoped GraphQL endpoint not identified). This helps an agent recover without wasting effort.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the unsupported status and include only the necessary technical context and error behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 stub with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully communicates what an agent needs to know: expect no data, expect a clear error, and understand why. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing further to document.

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 immediately states 'Not yet supported' and names the specific underlying resource (/overview/favorites), making the intended function (retrieving saved favorites) and its stub status unmistakable. This distinguishes it from working siblings by clearly communicating that it will not return data.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use signal: it is not yet supported and throws an error. It does not mention alternatives, but for a deliberately unsupported stub, the exclusion is clear and unambiguous.

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

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

While annotations already disclose readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, the description adds crucial runtime behavior: the tool is not implemented and will throw a clear error explaining the limitation. It also explains why (auth-scoped GraphQL not identified), giving the agent useful context beyond the structured 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 entire description is one compact sentence plus an explanatory clause. It front-loads the most important fact ('Not yet supported') and provides the necessary detail in two short segments, with no filler.

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 stub tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: it is unsupported, why, and what happens if called. A slight gap is the absence of any pointer to an alternative, but given the low complexity and informative annotations, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter semantics to document, and the description does not need to add anything beyond the empty 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 and title make clear the tool concerns the agent's saved Compass searches, and the first phrase 'Not yet supported' immediately conveys the tool's current status. It does not explicitly state the action verb 'get', but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from siblings such as compass_get_saved_homes, so an agent can understand what this tool is about.

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 no direct guidance on when to call this tool or which sibling to use instead; it only states that the tool is not yet supported and will throw an error. An agent is left to infer that the call should be avoided, but no alternative tool or condition is offered.

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

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: sessions is empty and active_session_id is null when no sessions exist. This goes beyond the schema and annotations by documenting the degenerate case.

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 two concise sentences. The primary behavior is stated first, and the edge case is added without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes useful 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 zero-parameter, read-only getter, the description covers the key return values and the empty-state behavior. It does not specify the full shape of each session object, but that level of detail is not critical for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty input schema already conveys. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist.

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 ('Return') with a specific resource: the full set of registered sessions plus the current active_session_id. It clearly distinguishes this read-only listing operation from sibling tools like compass_set_active_session or compass_register_session.

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 the tool is for reading session state, and the empty/null edge case gives context about what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as compass_set_active_session or compass_register_session.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains exactly what happens (a round-trip through the bridge), what will be returned (role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, plain-English hint), and the auth requirements ('Read-only, no auth required'). It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 dense but every clause earns its place: the action, the fixed target, the diagnostic fields, the output interpretation, and the usage cue. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and the usage guidance is separated cleanly at the end.

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?

This is a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, and the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, what it returns, how to interpret the hint, when to call it, and its safety profile. Nothing essential is missing.

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 zero parameters, and the description explains that the tool uses a fixed public URL and needs no user input. This adds clarity beyond the empty schema and makes the no-parameter design explicit.

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 names a specific verb ('Round-trips'), a specific resource (www.compass.com/robots.txt through the fetchproxy bridge), and the exact diagnostic outputs. It clearly differentiates this healthcheck from the data-retrieval and session-management siblings, so an agent can distinguish it at a glance.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It does not enumerate alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the purpose is specific enough that the intended usage is clear.

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

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true), the description discloses important behavior: re-registering the same account_identity updates rather than duplicates, the first registered session becomes the default active_session_id, and the call returns session_id for routing. These are non-obvious and valuable for correct invocation.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information about refresh behavior, return value, default active behavior, or mark_active usage. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential contract: return value, idempotent refresh behavior, default active session semantics, and how to mark active. Required parameter context is covered by the schema, and the description fills behavioral gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for account_identity (keyed identity, refresh behavior) and mark_active (can set active in the same call), enriching the schema's raw definitions.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Register (or refresh)') on a specific resource ('authenticated Compass session keyed by signed-in account identity') and clarifies the keying mechanism. It clearly differentiates from siblings like compass_set_active_session by describing session creation/update semantics and the mark_active option.

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?

Provides clear context for when to call: to register or refresh a session keyed by identity, with re-registration updating the existing session. It also explains when to pass mark_active: true, but does not explicitly name alternatives like compass_set_active_session or state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Even though readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover safety, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: retryable statuses that are NOT misses, auth_required recovery, the three-rung WAF-routing fallback, the deliberate decision to return no URL rather than leak a wrong property, server-side fan-out, and the pending deadline. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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 long, but proportionally so: it documents multiple return modes, retry semantics, and a fallback algorithm with no output schema available. It front-loads the core purpose and then methodically adds one behavior per sentence; every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and multiple non-obvious failure modes, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers exact row shapes for resolved, no-match, timeout, bridge_down, auth_required, and pending cases; explains when to retry; and states read-only/idempotent behavior consistent with the annotations. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, the addresses array, is already documented with min/max item counts and an example address line. The description adds that each input produces one row and that row's query echoes the input, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Resolve up to 100 street addresses to Compass listing URLs in a single call." This immediately distinguishes it from the singular compass_get_by_address and other siblings, and the rest of the description elaborates on output modes rather than obscuring the core purpose.

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 strong usage context: it is the bulk variant, it references compass_get_by_address for the same lookup rungs, and it gives explicit retry guidance for timeout, bridge_down, pending, and auth_required rows. However, it does not explicitly say "use compass_get_by_address for single addresses" or otherwise state when-not to use this tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the ~41-listing SSR page ceiling, #87 pagination canonicalization, offset/next_offset semantics, stable pid vs sha-based URL behavior, and photo URL omission in compact view. This is deep behavioral context an agent needs to avoid false cursor loops and stale references.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, then critical caveats are grouped into PAGINATION, banding, return-field, and URL-stability sections. There is no filler or repetition beyond a harmless closing read-only note.

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 no output schema and a complex search with pagination and URL nuances, the description enumerates the returned fields (address, price, beds/baths, sqft, lat/lng, _lid/ and _pid/ URLs, pid) and explains the total_items/num context. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

With only 56% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining view modes ('compact' strips image URLs), limit/offset caveats tied to #87, and the price/beds banding strategy for params that have bare schema entries. It adds actionable meaning beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 opening sentence delivers a specific verb and resource: 'Search Compass listings by location (city, ZIP, neighborhood) and optional filters.' It goes on to describe the retrieval mechanism and return payload, so an agent can distinguish this search primitive from single-property siblings like compass_get_property or compass_get_by_address.

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 strong operational guidance: narrow with price/beds bands to reach beyond the first SSR page, use next_offset to continue within a page, and pass view:'full' or switch to compass_get_property_photos for images. It stops short of explicitly ruling out when not to use search in favor of property-detail tools, though the names and returned URL guidance make the distinction mostly clear.

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

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

Annotations indicate idempotency and that this is not read-only; the description adds meaningful side-effect context: it changes the default session for subsequent tool calls. It also clarifies the relationship with per-call session_id overrides, going beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core behavior, the second adds necessary provenance and override semantics. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter, idempotent state-setter with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly. It covers what the tool does, where the session_id comes from, and how it interacts with explicit session_id parameters elsewhere.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the session_id must have been previously returned by compass_register_session and that it affects default routing, which is not captured in the schema's simple 'Session id to make active' text.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Switch') and names the exact resource ('active Compass session'), clarifying that it changes default routing for subsequent calls. It also distinguishes itself from registering a session by requiring a session already returned by compass_register_session.

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?

States the precondition clearly: the session_id must come from compass_register_session. It also explains when the default can be bypassed (tools accepting explicit session_id override it), giving useful routing context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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