crehq_company_real_estate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the data is 'PREMIUM' and may be 'unavailable or scope-gated', which alerts the agent to access restrictions and a fallback behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('get') but does not detail rate limits, error handling, or response formats. Adding the premium/gated context goes beyond minimal disclosure, hence a 4.

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 and every phrase is purposeful. It leads with a bold label (PREMIUM SITE-SELECTION DATA), then defines the resource and data fields, followed by target users and a fallback action. No filler or redundancy; it is optimally compact and well-structured.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists the returned data categories, identifies the target audience, and includes a fallback option. It covers the essential usage and content well, and does not need to describe return formats beyond what is already implied by the data list.

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 100% coverage: one parameter 'id' with a description ('CREHQ company id from crehq_companies_search'). The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage. No extra value beyond the schema is provided.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving a brand's site-selection criteria and target real-estate profile. It enumerates specific data elements (preferred site types, building/lot size, geographies, expansion markets) and uses an explicit verb ('get') with a specific resource. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like crehq_company_get by focusing on real-estate criteria.

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 states exactly when to use the tool: for landlords, brokers, and site-selectors who need to know a tenant's requirements before pitching. It also provides a clear alternative: if data is unavailable or scope-gated, use crehq_request_upgrade with requested_data='site_selection_criteria', offering an explicit fallback and preventing a wrong response.

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