Search Comps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that results 'display on an interactive map' and mentions 'similarity scoring,' which are useful behaviors. However, it does not clarify read-only nature, data sources, or any limitations, which is a moderate gap given the lack of annotation support.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a notable behavior (interactive map). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate for missing return-value details. It mentions map display and similarity scoring but does not describe the returned data structure (e.g., property details, score interpretation). The description is adequate for a straightforward search tool but leaves room for clarifying output semantics.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., city, address, borough, limit). It does not name or explain any parameters, but this is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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's function: 'Find comparable sales for a subject property with similarity scoring.' This uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('comparable sales') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_sales by emphasizing similarity scoring and subject-property focus.

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 use for property valuation or comps analysis ('for a subject property'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_sales or provide exclusions. Usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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