find_chicago_comparable_sales

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses data recency (~18 months), filtering (arm's-length, non-multi-parcel), and pricing ($0.10 per call). Does not cover rate limits or output format details beyond price range.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, output details, filtering, use cases, and pricing. No redundant or filler 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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input format, behavioral traits, and pricing. It could elaborate on the exact output structure (e.g., fields in the comps list), but the mentioned 'low/median/high price range' provides sufficient expectational completeness.

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 already describes the pin parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds value by specifying accepted formats (14-digit, dashed, 10-digit) and a usage hint to use another tool for address-to-PIN conversion.

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 it returns comparable sales and a lightweight valuation for Cook County/Chicago properties. It specifies the verb 'find' and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on comps and derived valuation, not raw 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?

Explicitly mentions use cases: valuation, investment screening, underwriting. Provides a hint to use search_chicago_property_by_address first if only an address. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but context is clear.

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