get_valuation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that the operation returns official valuation data and includes history, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination, so behavioral transparency is only moderately addressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds meaning: the action, the resource type, the 'official' nature, the BFE scope, and the history inclusion.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, so the description needs to carry substantial context. It provides a clear high-level purpose but omits what BFE means, how to format it, what the response structure looks like, and any operational constraints. This is not complete enough for an agent to reliably call the tool without further inference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a BFE,' which indicates that the 'bfe' parameter is a property identifier, but it never defines what a BFE is or what format is expected. This is minimal semantic help and does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 exact action ('Get') and resource ('official property and land valuation (VUR) for a BFE'), with a useful additional note about history. It is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_parcel or get_trades, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, preferred contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like get_trades or property_report, leaving the agent to infer when get_valuation is appropriate.

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