Compare homes.com properties side-by-side

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses that calls are concurrent, per-target errors are isolated, and summary is redundant/opt-in. This provides rich behavioral context.

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, front-loading the purpose, then detailing input, output, and options. While long, every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be tightening the summary explanation.

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, the description thoroughly covers return fields (extracted_features, hoa, etc.), error handling, concurrency, and optional features. It is complete for the agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context: for 'targets' it specifies the source of URLs, for 'include_summary' it explains redundancy, and for 'include_description' it clarifies why it's default false. This goes 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 fetches and aligns properties side-by-side. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('homes.com properties'), and distinguishes from siblings like homes_get_property and homes_search_properties.

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 explains when to use this tool (comparing multiple properties), provides input format (URL from search results), and notes error handling (per-target errors don't fail whole call). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like homes_bulk_get.

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