valuation.estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a current snapshot, notes that as_of is not supported, and gives accuracy context. Could mention rate limits or response structure, but overall provides good transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral caveat. Excellent conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return components (market estimate, assessed value, etc.). It covers limitations and unsupported features. Could mention typical response format or authentication requirements, but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly noting that the as_of parameter is not yet supported and ignored, which is crucial for correct invocation. Parcel_id is already described in schema, but the additional context elevates the score.

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 returns estimated market value for a parcel, including specific components like assessed value and last sale price. It distinguishes from siblings by listing what it provides and implying it's the go-to for valuation queries, unlike other tools like sales.history.

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 states when to use the tool (user asks for property value, market estimate, AVM, or comparing assessed vs market) and when not to use (substitute for an appraisal). Also provides accuracy limitations (MAE ±10-15%), guiding appropriate use.

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