Lookup Property Market Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety and world-awareness profile. The description adds the specific return fields (flood zone, income relative to state median, job growth rate), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe any additional behavioral nuances such as data freshness, rate limits, or edge cases (e.g., missing data for some addresses). Given the annotations handle the core safety traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with zero wasted words. It leads with the primary action ('Look up market intelligence for a property address'), then lists the specific returned data, and finally gives usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place; there is 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The parameter schema fully documents inputs. However, it doesn't mention potential caveats such as data availability for certain addresses or any limitations on geographic coverage. While not critical, this leaves a small gap in completeness for an agent that might need to handle edge cases. A score of 4 reflects this minor omission.

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% — both 'address' and 'zip' have descriptive text in the schema (address includes full property address example, zip mentions auto-extraction). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'market intelligence for a property address', and explicitly lists the specific data returned (flood zone, neighborhood income relative to state median, job growth rate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_deal, score_deal, and reverse_calc, which focus on deal analysis and calculations rather than property market 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when someone asks about a market, neighborhood, or location.' This gives a clear trigger for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of siblings (deal analysis, scoring, reverse calc) makes the distinction implicit. A clear usage trigger without exclusions earns a 4.

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