Buildium MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools follow a clear resource-action pattern, and entities like associations, leases, rentals, applicants, tenants, owners, units, vendors, tasks, bills, files, and bank accounts are distinct. However, some concepts overlap (rental vs. association variants, units vs. rentals) which could cause occasional confusion, though descriptions help clarify.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, create_, update_). Even non-standard operations like create_file_upload_request fit the pattern well. No mixing of conventions or vague verb styles.
Tool Count1/5
81 tools is extreme for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold that indicates an unwieldy toolset. While the domain is broad, this number makes it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers a wide range of property management entities with list/get/create/update operations, but notably lacks delete operations for all entities and some get endpoints for category-like resources (e.g., applicant groups, task categories). This leaves minor gaps that agents may need to work around.
Average 3/5 across 80 of 81 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
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, but it only says 'update file metadata.' It does not explain whether the update is a merge or full replacement, whether it requires special permissions, what happens if the file does not exist, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse at four words, which is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It lacks any explanatory detail that would justify its brevity, failing to use the space to convey needed context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, many sibling tools, no annotations) requires more contextual information. The description omits usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 does not explain the meaning of file_data, whether it is a partial update or the entire metadata object, or what keys are allowed. The ambiguity of file_data as an arbitrary object with additionalProperties is not resolved by the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (file metadata), which is specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metadata rather than file content, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting this tool over other update tools among the many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' which implies read-only, but it omits pagination behavior, default limit/offset, and whether it returns unfiltered data. No side effects or data scope are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it under-specifies the tool's capabilities. It is efficient but not sufficiently informative for an agent to use correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five optional parameters and sits among many related list tools. The description fails to explain filtering options, typical use cases, or alternatives, leaving significant gaps in context. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but other contextual aspects are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description provides no explanation for limit, offset, status, unit_id, or property_id. The agent cannot infer what these filters mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a specific verb ('List') and resource ('rental tenants') from Buildium, distinguishing it from siblings like list_rentals and list_association_tenants. It is unambiguous but lacks any detail about the scope or what constitutes a rental tenant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. It does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_rentals or list_association_tenants, nor does it hint at filtering by property or unit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description simply repeats the action 'update' without disclosing behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single minimal sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential information an agent needs, so brevity here is a deficiency rather than an asset.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested category_data object and no annotations, this description provides almost no contextual information. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what the update does, what data is expected, or how it relates to file categories within this system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of category_id or category_data. The category_data object is flexible (additionalProperties: true) but completely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing about its structure and required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Update' and resource 'file category', making the core action clear. However, it provides no specifics on what can be updated and only minimally distinguishes from sibling tools like create_file_category or list_file_categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or any context for when updating a file category is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description merely states 'Update an existing rental tenant' without mentioning side effects, partial updates, permissions, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, scoring 1.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded and brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains a single short sentence that does not explain key aspects, making it inappropriately small for a tool with nested parameters. Score 2.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested tenant_data object, many sibling update tools) and the absence of annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide any context for when to use it, prerequisites, or what fields tenant_data expects. Even with an output schema present, the description lacks essential operational context, scoring 1.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes tenant_id and tenant_data, but the description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they interact. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, so it scores 1.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (existing rental tenant), which distinguishes it from tools like update_rental or update_association_tenant. However, it lacks any additional scope or details that would further disambiguate it from closely related sibling tools, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other update tools, such as update_lease or update_rental. There are no alternatives mentioned, no context, and no exclusions. This is a minimal statement with no usage direction, so it scores 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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, yet it merely restates the tool's name without explaining mutation semantics, partial updates, required permissions, or return behavior. It adds no information beyond the name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the sentence is brief and front-loaded, it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information that a better-structured description would include.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex nested unit_data object and the existence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain update semantics or parameter meaning, making it insufficient for correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. It does not explain what unit_data should contain or how unit_id is used, leaving the agent without guidance for constructing a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and target (existing rental unit), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'update_rental', which may refer to a different entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_rental or create_rental_unit. The description gives no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Update a task category' with no information about side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, reversibility, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is completely insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is technically concise, but it is under-specified. It provides no value beyond the tool name and fails to include necessary details, so it is not 'appropriately sized' – it is too minimal to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter (category_data), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what fields category_data accepts, what a successful update returns, or how it handles partial updates. This tool requires considerably more context to be used correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (category_id and category_data) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the purpose of category_data (a free-form object with additionalProperties) entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('task category'), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'create_task_category' or 'list_task_categories'. However, it is minimal and largely restates the tool name without adding detail about what specifically is updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. There is no mention of needing an existing category or that one should use 'create_task_category' first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Create a new file category' and adds no details about permissions, duplicate handling, or required data. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse, but the single sentence merely restates the tool name and adds no additional value. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex nested parameter, no annotations, and an unknown output schema. The one-sentence description does not explain what constitutes a valid file category or what the response contains, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention 'category_data' at all. The parameter remains a free-form object with additionalProperties:true, giving no semantic guidance to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'file category', clearly distinguishing it from update_file_category and list_file_categories. It does not elaborate on domain context, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the operation without contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'Create a new rental unit.' It discloses no side effects, required permissions, validation rules, or behavior for edge cases (e.g., duplicate units).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness, but it is so underspecified that it fails to provide useful structure or context. It's a single sentence that only restates the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complete absence of annotations, a free-form parameter with no schema description, and a rich set of sibling tools, this description is grossly inadequate. It provides no information about required fields, expected response, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single free-form object 'unit_data' with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to explain what fields or structure unit_data should have, leaving the parameter completely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'rental unit', which is distinct from sibling create tools like create_rental and create_association_unit. However, it doesn't explicitly elaborate on the scope or nuance of a 'rental unit', so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_rental or create_association_unit. There are no contextual signals or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation but fails to describe whether it is a partial or full update, what happens if the unit does not exist, or any side effects. This is a significant omission for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence and is not verbose, but it is underspecified for a tool with no annotations and minimal schema documentation. It is concise but lacks necessary details, making it less effective than a well-rounded description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of nested objects and the presence of an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not address update semantics, parameter meanings, or expected behavior, leaving the agent without critical context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what unit_data should contain, how unit_id is used, or the format expected. There is no attempt to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (association unit), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_association or create_association_unit, but the resource name is specific enough for basic identification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_association_unit or list_association_units. The description only implies that it is for existing units but offers no context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a vendor category,' which adds no context beyond the mutation implied by the verb. There is no mention of required permissions, reversibility, or response behavior, making it nearly non-informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single declarative sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and lacks any structural detail about parameters or usage. It is not overly verbose, but it under-specifies to the point of being minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a nested object parameter, missing annotations, and no output schema description, the context is severely incomplete. The description does not mention required fields, the meaning of category_data, or any post-update behavior. An agent would not have enough information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the purpose of category_id or the structure of category_data, which is an arbitrary object with additionalProperties true. This leaves the agent with no understanding of what data to provide or what fields are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a vendor category, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_vendor_category and list_vendor_categories, though it lacks scope details about what fields can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between update and create operations. The clarity is minimal and leaves the agent without strategic direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, validation rules, permission requirements, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits. The agent is left without critical information about what happens when a payment is created.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It simply repeats the tool name's action without providing additional value. It does not earn its place with substantive content, qualifying as under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with a nested object (payment_data) and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the structure of payment_data, required fields, or any constraints. Even though an output schema exists, the input side is entirely opaque, making it impossible for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to either 'bill_id' or 'payment_data'. It fails to explain what payment_data should contain, required fields, or any relationships. The description is entirely unhelpful for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a payment for a bill' uses a specific verb ('create') and clearly identifies the resource (payment) and its context (bill). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling read tools like list_bill_payments and get_bill_payment, and from create_bill which creates the bill itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing bill), relationship to list_bill_payments, or any exclusions. It is purely a statement of action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a request is created and a URL is returned, but it does not mention any prerequisites, side effects, or details about the upload request or URL lifetime.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information needed to use the tool, so the brevity is not an asset.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool requires a nested object parameter with no schema description, and the description offers no guidance on its structure or the resulting upload URL's usage. Even with an output schema present, the lack of parameter context makes the description far below the minimum viable level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema's only parameter, upload_request, is an opaque object with no field descriptions. The tool description provides zero additional information about how to construct the upload request or what fields are expected, leaving the parameter completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Create), resource (file upload request), and outcome (get an upload URL). It distinguishes from the sibling create_file_download_request by clearly indicating the upload direction, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_file_download_request. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and the one-line description, providing no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the listing action. It does not mention pagination, filtering by property_id, ordering, or any side effects, and no annotations are provided to fill the gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it largely restates the tool name with the addition of "from Buildium." It lacks operational detail and is under-specification rather than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three optional parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely inadequate. It provides no information about filtering, pagination, or return behavior; even with an output schema present, the input side is undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines limit, offset, and property_id but contains no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention them. With 0% schema coverage, the agent has no help understanding parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states "List rental owners from Buildium," clearly identifying the action (list), the resource (rental owners), and the source system. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_association_owners or list_rental_tenants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided; the description only states what the tool does, not when to use it over alternatives such as get_rental_owner or list_rentals. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning potential side effects, required permissions, data persistence, or validation rules. For a create (mutation) tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, offering no additional context that would make the sentence 'earn its place' beyond what the tool name already conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has a nested object parameter (bill_data) and an output schema, the description should clarify the expected structure or provide some context about the bill domain. It does neither, making the tool inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single 'bill_data' object with no description and 0% schema description coverage, but the tool description does not mention or clarify this parameter at all. The description provides no meaning beyond the schema field name, so the agent has no insight into what should be included in bill_data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new bill'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bills, get_bill, and update_bill. However, it lacks any elaboration on what a 'bill' represents or how this creation differs from other create_* tools, so it stops short of full clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_bill or create_bill_payment. The description does not mention prerequisites, intended use cases, or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Create a new rental owner.' This adds no information beyond what the tool name implies. It does not mention side effects, validation, idempotency, or required authentication, leaving the agent without critical context for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler, but it offers almost no additional detail beyond the tool's name. It is appropriately short for a simple operation, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the opaque free-form parameter, lack of annotations, and absence of any usage or behavioral context, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke this tool correctly. Even though an output schema exists, the input side is entirely unhelpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, owner_data, is a free-form object with additionalProperties true. The description does not explain what owner_data should contain, what fields are expected, or how the data should be structured. This is a total gap in parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('rental owner'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like update_rental_owner and list_rental_owners. However, it is terse and does not differentiate from create_association_owner, though the resource name provides some context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_association_owner. The description gives no context about scenarios that call for creating a rental owner specifically, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'create' without mentioning potential side effects, required permissions, data relationships, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, which detracts from its overall usefulness despite the lack of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complex parameter (nested object with additionalProperties true), no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the one-line description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide essential context about the tenant_data structure or expected behavior, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single parameter 'tenant_data' as an object with additionalProperties true, but the description does not mention this parameter or its intended contents. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of what data to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new rental tenant.' clearly states a specific verb ('create') and resource ('rental tenant'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_association_tenant and create_rental_owner. However, it lacks any additional scope or qualification that would fully differentiate it from other create tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_association_tenant or update_rental_tenant. There is no context indicating prerequisites, relationships, or conditions, leaving the agent to rely solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List', which implies a read operation, but gives no details about pagination defaults, filtering behavior, output structure, or any side effects. The phrase 'from Buildium' adds no operational insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically complete sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative, almost crossing into tautology territory—though it does add the source 'Buildium'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and a wide array of sibling list tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what data is returned, or how this tool differs from closely related ones. The existence of an output schema is noted, but the description offers no context to interpret it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters (limit, offset, status, property_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention them at all. There is no explanation of how these parameters affect the query or what values are expected, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('association owners') with a source ('Buildium'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like list_association_board_members or list_association_ownership_accounts, leaving potential ambiguity about what an 'association owner' specifically refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or contrasts with similar list tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), filtering options, rate limits, or any side effects. The existence of parameters hints at behavior, but the description itself adds minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is easy to parse and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It is not verbose but lacks substantive content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any context about filtering, pagination, or when to use association tenants versus rental tenants. The agent would have to rely on the parameter names and output schema alone, which is insufficient for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, offset, status, property_id). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters or their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('association tenants'), distinguishing it from related tools like list_rental_tenants. The addition of 'from Buildium' provides source context. However, it offers no additional scope or detail beyond the tool's name, making it effective but not exceptional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_rental_tenants or list_association_owners. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or filtering scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' but does not explain side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or validation behavior. The word 'existing' hints at a prerequisite but is insufficient for safe operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and extremely short, which is concise in length, but the brevity omits crucial details. It is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, as the open-ended data object and usage conditions are left unexplained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of bank_account_data, whether updates are partial or full, or what the response contains. It also fails to contrast with sibling tools in the same domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema shows bank_account_id and bank_account_data, but the description provides no explanation of these parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails entirely to clarify that bank_account_data is an open object, leaving the agent without guidance on what to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('update') and the resource ('bank account'), which distinguishes it from create/get/list operations. It is specific and unambiguous, though it lacks detail on what fields can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_bank_account or get_bank_account, nor any prerequisites or constraints. The phrase 'existing bank account' implies one must already exist, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states 'Update an existing bill' but doesn't disclose partial update behavior, idempotency, required permissions, or any side effects beyond the 'existing' qualifier.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise in form yet lacks the substance needed to be an effective tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter with additionalProperties true and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, side effects, or required structure for bill_data, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for bill_id or bill_data. It never mentions what fields can be updated, how bill_data is structured, or any constraints, leaving the parameter semantics entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing bill'), distinguishing it from create_bill and get_bill. It doesn't specify any additional scope, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives like create_bill or other update_* tools. The intended context is only implied by the tool's name and the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation but doesn't state whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether it's idempotent, or what side effects occur. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, uncluttered sentence, which is concise. However, it's under-specified—it lacks necessary detail, making it more a case of under-specification than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter (owner_data) and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain update semantics, constraints on owner_data, or expected return values, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly despite the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to owner_id or owner_data. owner_data is an open object (additionalProperties: true), yet the description doesn't explain its structure or purpose, making parameter semantics entirely reliant on the ambiguous schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing rental owner' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (rental owner), distinguishing it from create/get operations for rental owners. However, it doesn't elaborate on scope or differentiate from similar update tools like update_association_owner, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the action without context or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a mutation ('update') but does not mention whether the update is partial or full replacement, how vendor_data is handled, whether fields are validated, or any permission or side-effect details. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—a single sentence with no fluff—but it under-specifies the tool. While not wasteful, it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, as it omits essential usage details that an agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the return format, what constitutes a successful update, or any error conditions. The presence of sibling tools also suggests a need for more context to disambiguate from similar update operations, which is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no explanation of the two parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and vendor_data is an arbitrary object with additionalProperties true, yet the description does not clarify what fields it accepts, how it merges, or the meaning of the vendor_id. The param names are the only hint, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an existing vendor,' which specifies the verb (update) and resource (vendor). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vendor, create_vendor, and list_vendors, though it does not elaborate on which vendor attributes can be changed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The use case is only implied by the verb 'update,' and no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, required permissions, validation rules, or behavior for duplicate categories or invalid input. The description offers no transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it is arguably too terse given the need for parameter clarification, but as a concise statement of purpose it is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter with no schema description, no annotations, and no information about the response or behavior. The description is far too minimal to enable correct invocation, especially given the nested object type and the need to construct valid category_data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines one parameter, category_data, as an object with additionalProperties true but provides no description. The description does not explain what fields or structure are expected inside category_data, leaving the agent with zero semantic guidance despite 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new task category.' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (task category), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_task_categories and update_task_category. The intent is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task_category or list_task_categories. The description lacks any contextual preference, exceptions, or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the mutation ('update') but does not explain partial vs. full replacement, validation behavior, auth requirements, or response semantics. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it merely restates the tool name with 'an existing', adding no informational value. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; every word is redundant with the name and title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool involves a required nested object parameter and has no annotations, yet the description is minimal. There is no information about what tenant_data should look like, how tenant_id is used, or what the output schema contains. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate at all. 'tenant_data' is defined only as an unconstrained object (additionalProperties: true), leaving agents to guess required fields and structure. No parameter meanings are clarified beyond the bare names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing association tenant' clearly specifies the verb (update), resource (association tenant), and scope (existing), distinguishing it from create and list sibling tools. It uniquely identifies the operation without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and no exclusion criteria are given. The description does not indicate required existence checks or relationships to other tenant operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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, but it only says 'Create a new association tenant.' It does not mention required data fields, permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what a successful creation returns, so the agent cannot infer safety or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified, so its brevity undercuts usefulness; a more informative sentence could have included parameter guidance or link to sibling tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested, unconstrained payload parameter and no annotations, yet the description only states the action. Although an output schema exists, the description does not address the parameter structure or domain context, making it inadequate for an agent to construct a valid tenant_data object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, tenant_data, is an unconstrained object (additionalProperties: true). The tool description adds no meaning to this parameter; the name 'tenant_data' is a weak hint at best, and there is no indication of required fields or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'association tenant', making the tool's core action clear. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like create_rental_tenant by naming 'association'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_rental_tenant, update_association_tenant, or create_association. The single sentence only states the action and provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new bank account,' omitting details about expected input structure, validation requirements, side effects, or error behavior. For a write operation with a loosely specified parameter, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words; the core action is front-loaded and easily parsed. However, given the need for additional context, it is terse, but as an efficiency measure it is appropriately concise for a simple creation statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool involves a complex nested parameter, no annotations, and a broad API context with many sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still lacks essential context: input requirements, usage context, and differentiation from related tools. It is minimally viable but clearly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a single 'bank_account_data' object with additionalProperties:true and no descriptions, while schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter or provide any guidance on what data to include, so the agent has no semantic grounding for the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('bank account'), using a specific verb and object. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling create_* tools, and the meaning of 'bank account' in this domain is not clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_bank_account or list_bank_accounts. It simply states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Create a new vendor.' It discloses no side effects, required permissions, validation behavior, return values, or edge cases. This is entirely opaque for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an open-ended vendor_data object and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what a vendor is, what data is required, or what the tool returns. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke it beyond the obvious create action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'vendor_data' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or any fields it should contain. It completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'vendor', making it obvious the tool creates a new vendor. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vendors, get_vendor, and update_vendor by specifying the create action on the vendor entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for adding a new vendor, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states a simple list operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, filtering capabilities, or what constitutes an association unit, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could be slightly more structured to include usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the presence of many related list tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how to use the optional parameters or when to choose this over list_rental_units, making it hard for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (limit, offset, property_id). The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the agent gets no help understanding how to use these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'association units' from Buildium, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from similar list tools like list_rental_units by naming 'association units,' though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_rental_units or list_unit_listings. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond the implied read-only nature of listing. It does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), potential filtering via entity_id/category_id/entity_type, or any response characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action, but it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though not to the level of a tautology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to paginate, filter, or what the output represents, despite the output schema existing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions none of the five parameters (limit, offset, entity_id, category_id, entity_type) or how they affect the list results. The description fails to compensate for the absence of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (files from Buildium). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling file tools like get_file or list_file_categories, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file or list_file_categories. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions creation and return of details but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, validation rules, or limitations. The return value is vaguely described as 'details'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and follows a clear structure with Args and Returns sections. It earns high marks for conciseness, though the Args content is not informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool takes a complex nested object, yet neither the schema nor the description provides any information about its expected keys or format. The description is too minimal for an agent to reliably invoke the tool with correct data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single parameter 'group_data' with no description and additionalProperties: true. The description only adds 'Applicant group data dictionary,' which restates the parameter name without explaining its structure or required fields. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action and resource: 'Create a new applicant group.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_applicant_groups and update_applicant_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_applicant or update_applicant_group. The description only states what it does, not the intended context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Create a new association owner' only restates the tool's name and implies a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, data validation rules, required permissions, or idempotency. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the name already suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fillers or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple CRUD operation, though the brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail, which is addressed in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter that is completely undocumented, no annotations, and no usage guidelines, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to populate owner_data or what to expect beyond the existence of an output schema. The minimal wording is far from sufficient for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'owner_data', is an object with additionalProperties:true and no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain what fields or structure owner_data should have, offering no help in constructing a valid request. It entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and the resource ('association owner'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_association_owners or update_association_owner. It unambiguously tells the agent what action this tool performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_association_owner or create_association. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'create' without mentioning side effects, duplicate handling, permissions, or validation. The flexible 'category_data' object without constraints introduces ambiguity about what happens on invalid input.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal added value. It is not verbose, but it borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with an arbitrary nested object and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain required fields, return behavior, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'category_data' object with additionalProperties true and no property descriptions, and the description adds no information about expected fields or structure. With 0% schema coverage, the agent cannot construct valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create') and the resource ('vendor category'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_vendor_category and list_vendor_categories. The verb+resource structure is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not explain the relationship with vendor categories or when creation is appropriate, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without mentioning pagination, default limits, filter semantics, or the shape of the response, leaving important behavior implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler words or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list endpoint and front-loads the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and a sparse description, the tool lacks essential context about filtering, pagination, and response behavior. The schema hints at parameters, but the description does not explain how or when to use them, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool with four optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, offset, status, vendor_id). The agent receives no information about valid status values, how vendor_id filters, or the meaning of pagination parameters beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly names the resource 'bills', making the core operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_bill_payments, but the resource name is distinct enough to avoid confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bill, create_bill, or list_bill_payments. There is no mention of filtering, pagination, or any context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states only the basic action ('list tasks') without revealing pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, return structure, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is minimal disclosure, adding little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It earns its place for stating purpose, but it omits critical context that would make it useful. It reads more like a bare minimum than a well-crafted concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a list tool with pagination and filters. It does not mention that tasks can be filtered by type or assigned user, nor does it explain pagination behavior. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the four parameters (limit, offset, task_type, assigned_to_user_id). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving agents without any semantic understanding of how to use these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List tasks from Buildium' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (tasks), making the tool's purpose obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_task' (single-item retrieval) and 'list_task_categories' (different resource) because it specifically targets tasks, not categories or individual items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use list_task_categories or get_task, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The only clue is the name and generic 'list tasks' phrasing, which is insufficient for selecting among many sibling list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'update' and 'returns updated details,' but doesn't disclose partial vs full replacement, validation rules, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and logically formatted with Args/Returns sections. It is concise, though could afford a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the tool is incomplete without update semantics and usage context. The nested applicant_data parameter is undefined, making it hard to construct a valid update payload.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It identifies applicant_id and applicant_data as a dictionary, but doesn't specify which fields are updatable or the exact meaning of the data dictionary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it updates an existing applicant with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling update tools like update_application or update_applicant_group, but the applicant resource is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus create_applicant or other update tools. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and 'Returns updated application details,' but does not clarify whether this is a partial or complete update, what happens to omitted fields, or any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear verb, Args list, and Returns section. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation, though the brevity leaves out meaningful operational details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested application_data object and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not explain the data structure, validation rules, or error behaviors, leaving the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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, but it only provides tautological glosses like 'applicant_id: The applicant ID.' The key parameter application_data is vaguely described as a 'dictionary' with no mention of required keys, allowed values, or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an application status' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_applicant and get_application. However, the focus on 'status' may be narrower than the actual application_data object being updated, creating slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the application must already exist or if specific statuses are required for the update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Update', indicating mutation, but omits side effects, partial vs. full replacement semantics, permission requirements, and response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity leaves it under-specified. It is concise yet lacks substantive content beyond restating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the opaque owner_data object, absent annotations, and no usage guidance, this one-sentence description is insufficient for correct invocation. The output schema helps with return values, but input semantics and when-to-use context are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the parameters. In particular, the free-form owner_data object is left completely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer what fields or shape are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Update') and specific resource ('association owner'), and the modifier 'existing' clearly distinguishes it from the create_association_owner sibling. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_association_owner or get_association_owner. The word 'existing' implies the target already exists, but there are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it merely restates the tool's name. It does not disclose permissions, validation requirements, side effects, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with purpose, using a clean Args/Returns structure. The Returns line is slightly redundant but does not harm clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with a single free-form object parameter, the description lacks field details, examples, or prerequisites. The output schema may cover returns, but input semantics are severely under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description labels rental_data as a 'dictionary with required fields' but doesn't list any specific fields, leaving the agent without enough information. Schema coverage is 0% and this minimal hint does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new rental property' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_rental, get_rental, and create_rental_unit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The many related CRUD siblings make this confusion likely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get' and 'Returns' but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or potential error conditions. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every section earns its place, though the Args details are tautological.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter, the description provides the essential purpose, parameters, and return type. However, given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions, it lacks context on error handling, authentication, or the exact structure of the returned dictionary, making it minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. The Args section repeats the parameter names and says 'The applicant ID' and 'The application ID', which adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names. It does not explain the relationship between the two IDs or any value constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a specific application by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list-type tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_ tools or clarify the need for both applicant_id and application_id upfront.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_applicant_applications or update_application. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool's name without explaining pagination, return structure, side effects, or read-only nature. It adds no behavioral insight beyond what the name already conveys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is highly efficient. However, its extreme brevity sacrifices substance, omitting critical parameter and behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has two pagination parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It fails to clarify default behavior or how the parameters control listing, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. Since the description should compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, this is a significant omission that leaves parameter semantics unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('bank accounts'), and names the source system ('Buildium'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bank_account_transactions and get_bank_account, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bank_account or list_bank_account_transactions. It neither states explicit use cases nor excludes any scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says a new association unit is created; it does not disclose input requirements, return behavior, authorization needs, side effects, or error conditions. With no annotations available, this leaves the tool's behavioral profile largely undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is easy to parse, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than intentional conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as required fields within unit_data, prerequisites, or how association units relate to other entities. The tool's usefulness depends on details that are absent from both the description and the parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter unit_data has a schema with additionalProperties:true and zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain what unit_data should contain, so the agent must guess the structure of this nested object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a specific verb+resource statement: 'Create a new association unit.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_association, create_rental_unit, and update_association_unit by naming the exact entity type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action and resource, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and vaguely mentions required fields ('propertyId, unitId, etc.'), but does not disclose side effects, permissions, validation, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with three short sections, all of which are relevant. The Args and Returns sections are clear, though noticeably sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple interface, the description partially covers it, but the vague lease_data specification leaves a major gap. The output schema is present, but the input structure is undefined, making the tool difficult to use correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no property definitions for lease_data (additionalProperties: true). The description adds a hint that propertyId and unitId are required but leaves the rest to 'etc.', which is insufficient for an unstructured object parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new lease.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lease, list_leases, and update_lease, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing property or unit, nor does it contrast with update_lease or list_leases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List rental units' with no mention of pagination (limit/offset), filtering by property_id, or whether it returns all records. It is not misleading, but it is extremely minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It earns its place, though it could add more detail without sacrificing concision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema exists and covers return values, the description leaves out important context such as pagination defaults, filter options, and relationship to sibling tools. For a list tool with three optional parameters, a bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose of limit, offset, or property_id. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' and a clear resource 'rental units', naming the system 'Buildium'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rentals (likely rental properties) and get_rental_unit (singular).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_rentals or list_unit_listings. There is no mention of filtering by property or pagination strategy, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose that both bank_account_id and transaction_id are required for correct scoping, what happens on invalid IDs, or whether any authentication or permissions are needed. The behavior is under-specified for a tool with two required parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently concise, though it sacrifices substance. It does not waste space but could have used the brevity to clarify parameter roles or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation. It fails to explain the two IDs, which are required and have zero schema descriptions. A simple getter should at least state that bank_account_id scopes the transaction and transaction_id identifies it. The description falls short of being a viable standalone guide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only references 'by ID' without clarifying that transaction_id is the target and bank_account_id is the scoping parent. Both parameters remain semantically unexplained, leaving the agent to guess how to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the function: 'Get a specific bank account transaction by ID.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'bank account transaction' are precise, and the qualifier 'specific... by ID' distinguishes it from the sibling list_bank_account_transactions, which retrieves a collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests use when a single transaction is needed by ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_bank_account_transactions or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. Context from sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the return value ('Created applicant details') but lacks details on required fields, validation, side effects, or error handling. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single opaque object parameter with no schema details, and the description fails to enumerate the required fields. This makes it difficult to know what to pass, so the description is incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, applicant_data, is described as 'Applicant data dictionary with required fields', but the schema is opaque (additionalProperties: true) and doesn't list any required fields. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new applicant', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_applicant_group and update_applicant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_applicant_group, or any prerequisites. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It only mentions 'Create a new association' and 'Returns: Created association details', omitting side effects, permission requirements, validation behavior, or idempotency. It adds minimal transparency beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with clear Args and Returns sections, and every sentence is purposeful. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with a generic dictionary parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not enumerate required fields or describe the created association details, leaving the agent without enough context to reliably construct the input. The mention of 'required fields' without specifics is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for association_data (0% coverage), and the description says 'Association data dictionary with required fields.' This adds a hint that the parameter is a dictionary with mandatory fields, but it fails to specify which fields are required or the overall structure, only partially compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new association' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_associations, get_association, and update_association. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_lease or create_vendor. The description simply states the action without contextual usage instructions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic get operation without mentioning error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), authorization requirements, or any side effects. It does not add value beyond the tool name and parameter naming.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is easy to parse and directly states the core action. However, it is somewhat terse and could include a hint about the parameter without sacrificing conciseness, so a perfect score is not warranted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is very simple (one integer parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and no mention of edge cases, the description is only minimally viable. It lacks context about related resources or the meaning of a bank account in this system, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 'by ID' which aligns with the bank_account_id parameter, but it does not explain what the ID represents, how to obtain it, or whether it is a global identifier or scoped to an association. The schema only provides the type integer, and the description adds minimal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'bank account', and the method 'by ID', which precisely defines the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_bank_accounts (which lists all) and get_bank_account_transaction (which retrieves transactions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenario like 'use this to fetch a single account' or point to list_bank_accounts for enumeration. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'specific ... by ID'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read operation ('list') but does not disclose potential behaviors such as pagination, ordering, filtering by status, or the possibility of an empty list. Without annotations, the description is too sparse to set expectations for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action. While it is very brief, it effectively communicates the core purpose without wasted words, which fits the concise nature of a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity and the existence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what the list includes (e.g., all payments, statuses), and it relies heavily on the tool name and sibling context. For a simple list operation, this is sufficient but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 indirectly implies that bill_id is the identifier of the bill for which payments are listed, but it does not explain the meaning of the parameter, any constraints, or format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (payments), and the scope (for a specific bill). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bill_payment (single payment) and create_bill_payment (creation), and from list_bills (which lists bills, not payments). The wording is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_bill_payment should be used for a single payment, or that create_bill_payment should be used for adding payments. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is that it requires a specific bill, but this is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies read-only, but no behavioral traits are disclosed: no pagination logic, no default sorting, no authentication requirements, and no caveats about large result sets. The description adds no value beyond a basic statement of intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention pagination behavior, which is directly relevant given the limit/offset parameters, nor does it provide context on when to use aliases. For a simple tool it might be minimally viable, but it leaves notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the parameters at all. While 'limit' and 'offset' are self-explanatory, the description provides no context on how they behave (e.g., maximum limit, default behavior), so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List vendors') and clearly identifies the domain ('from Buildium'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vendor (single entity) and list_vendor_categories (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_vendor is for a single vendor or that list_vendor_categories is for categories, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates and returns updated details, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, partial vs. full update behavior, error handling, or what happens if the association does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear docstring format using Args and Returns. Every sentence contributes information, and the main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence without unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an update tool with no annotations and a flexible association_data object, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields can be updated, how to structure nested data, or any behavioral constraints. While an output schema is indicated, the description still lacks essential usage and field semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only paraphrases the parameter names. 'association_data: Association data dictionary with fields to update' adds minimal clarity but does not specify valid field names, value types, or structure, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing association' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from create, get, and list siblings. The word 'existing' further clarifies that it modifies an already-created association.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_association or create_association. There is no mention of prerequisites, when an update is appropriate, or when another tool should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a write operation (creating a request) but does not explain side effects, authorization needs, URL expiration, or whether the download request is asynchronous. The description only states the action and outcome, lacking important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about the nature of a 'download request' (e.g., whether the URL expires, if a record is created) and does not differentiate from similar operations. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. The only parameter, file_id, is not explained beyond its name. While its meaning is inferable, the description does not explicitly clarify that file_id refers to the file to be downloaded or add any constraints (e.g., file must exist).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action ('Create a file download request') and the intended outcome ('to get a download URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file_upload_request, which handles uploads instead of downloads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file or create_file_upload_request. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is or isn't appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the return type ('Dictionary with board members list') and parameter defaults (via Args section), but does not explicitly confirm it's read-only, mention error handling for invalid IDs, or describe pagination behavior beyond the defaults. The lack of safety annotations increases the need for explicit behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly structured with a clear purpose sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. It uses minimal words, contains no redundant fluff, and follows a standard docstring format. Every line contributes useful information for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward list operation, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the association doesn't exist, sorting order, or whether pagination is cursor-based). Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, a 3 is appropriate—it's adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description provides one-line explanations for each parameter: association_id, limit (maximum results), and offset (pagination). These add meaning beyond the raw schema, though association_id's description is somewhat tautological. The defaults are also restated, which helps, so it compensates reasonably for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List board members for a specific association.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('board members'), and the association_id parameter clarifies scope. While it differentiates from siblings like list_association_owners by naming the resource, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., association must exist), when not to use it, or preferred alternatives for other member types. The sibling list includes similar tools like list_association_owners, but the description gives no comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return value ('Updated applicant group details') and does not explain whether the update is partial or full, any side effects, permissions required, or how the update behaves with the provided group_data. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact docstring with a clear structure: action, args, and returns. It is concise, front-loaded, and uses no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too thin for a tool with no annotations. It does not explain what an applicant group is, the semantics of group_data, or when to use this tool. The description leaves significant gaps in context that would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only parameter types with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add basic meanings: group_id is 'The applicant group ID' and group_data is 'Updated group data dictionary.' However, the group_data description is vague and does not specify accepted keys or structure, only partially compensating for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action and target: 'Update an applicant group.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as update_applicant and update_application by explicitly naming the group entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that it's an update operation, that rental_data is 'fields to update' (suggesting partial update), and that it returns updated details. However, it lacks information on permissions, error conditions, or side effects, which is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations are minimal and could be enriched without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, low schema coverage, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It explains the basic operation and return type, but misses usage context, parameter format specifics, and any behavioral caveats. The output schema helps with return values, but the input side remains under-explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 explains property_id as 'the property ID' and rental_data as 'a dictionary with fields to update,' adding basic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not enumerate valid fields, leaving the flexible additionalProperties object under-specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing rental property' with a specific verb and resource. The term 'existing' distinguishes it from create_rental, and the resource is unambiguous despite many sibling update_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_rental or get_rental. The description only implies it's for modifying an existing property, but no explicit exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or response format. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not add context beyond the action itself, leaving the agent without information on failure modes or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, clearly front-loaded with the essential information. There is no wasted content, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations and any behavioral context (e.g., not-found handling, read-only) leaves room for improvement, even though the verb 'get' provides some implicit safety signal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for the parameter semantics. It merely says 'by ID', which mirrors the parameter name owner_id without explaining its source or significance. The integer type and required status are already in the schema, so the description adds little value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific rental owner', with the qualifier 'by ID' distinguishing it from list/create/update siblings. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when an owner_id is known, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives like list_rental_owners. The usage is reasonably inferred but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Get') and does not mention error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), permission requirements, or that it is a read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond what the name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity get-by-ID tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any information about error scenarios, permissions, or any special behaviors, making it minimally viable but not complete for an agent deciding between this and similar fetch operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 'by ID' but does not clarify the nature or format of tenant_id beyond the schema's integer type. No additional meaning is provided, and the same information is already evident from the parameter name and tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific rental tenant by ID' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('rental tenant') with a unique identifier, distinguishing it from list/create/update sibling tools. It precisely defines the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need a single rental tenant by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or when list_rental_tenants might be more appropriate. The context is clear from the name and description, but no active direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the return format ('Dictionary with applications list') and does not disclose behavior such as error handling, ordering, or whether an empty list is returned for applicants without applications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a clear header, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable for basic invocation but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. An agent can infer how to call it but may not know edge-case behavior or when to choose it over similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description's Args section simply restates the parameter name ('applicant_id: The applicant ID') without adding contextual meaning like the role of the ID or any constraints. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List applications for a specific applicant' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_applicants and get_application. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context (given an applicant_id, retrieve their applications) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_application or list_applicants. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only restates the action and provides no behavioral details such as read-only nature, default ordering, or that limit/offset are used for pagination. No contradictions, but minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single declarative sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with the schema, is adequate for a simple list tool: it identifies the required resource and there is an output schema, so return values are covered. However, it lacks guidance on pagination semantics, when to use this tool, and any behavioral caveats that an agent would need for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only indirectly references bank_account_id ('specific bank account') and provides no explanation of limit or offset parameters. Names suggest pagination, but the description doesn't confirm or add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the specific action (list transactions) and scope (for a specific bank account). The verb 'list' with resource 'transactions' clearly distinguishes from singular retrieval tool get_bank_account_transaction and other transaction list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage by stating the purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_bank_account_transaction, nor any exclusions or pagination strategy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and parameter shapes; it fails to disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, validation requirements, side effects, or permission needs. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with an action statement followed by a clean Args/Returns block. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only two parameters, the nested lease_data object is entirely undocumented in structure and allowed keys. The output schema exists but is not described, and the returns line 'Updated lease details' offers minimal information. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some meaning beyond the raw schema: lease_id as 'The lease ID' and lease_data as a 'dictionary with fields to update', hinting at partial update semantics. However, it lacks details about valid fields, nested structure, or constraints, leaving schema coverage at 0% and forced to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing lease' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_lease, get_lease, and list_leases. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the verb 'update' and 'existing lease' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_lease or get_lease. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action 'Get' without disclosing read-only nature, error behavior, response format, or any side effects. Minimal value beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description provides the essential purpose, but it omits usage guidance and behavioral details. The existence of an output schema alleviates the need to explain return values, yet the lack of annotations and exclusions leaves the overall description only minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. The phrase 'by ID' clarifies that the sole parameter owner_id is the identifier to fetch with, which adds some semantic context beyond the schema's bare type integer. But it offers no additional detail like required format or behavior when missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific association owner by ID' uses a specific verb (get), a clear resource (association owner), and scoping (by ID). It clearly distinguishes this from list_association_owners and other get_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use when you need a single association owner by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only restates 'Get a specific file by ID' and provides no information about read-only semantics, permissions, error handling, or whether file content or metadata is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is immediately understandable and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The output schema covers return values, and the parameter is straightforward, though the lack of usage guidance and behavioral detail leaves a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely says 'by ID', which restates the parameter name file_id. It adds no extra meaning about the parameter type, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already shows as an integer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('a specific file') and distinguishes by requiring an ID. This aligns with sibling get_* tools and differentiates from list_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you already have a file ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_files or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and does not disclose any additional behavior such as read-only nature, error handling, permissions, or effects. There is no mention of what happens if the task doesn't exist, or whether other related data is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with an output schema, the description covers the basic operation. However, the lack of annotations and any behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, prerequisites, or related resources) leaves some gaps. It is minimally viable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that 'task_id' is the unique identifier to fetch the task, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type. However, with 0% schema coverage, it does not describe any further constraints or format beyond what the schema provides, and the single parameter is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'task', and the scope 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_tasks' by implying a single, specific task. The grammar is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a task_id is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like list_tasks, nor does it exclude any conditions. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it lists applicant groups and returns a dictionary, but it doesn't clarify pagination behavior beyond the parameter names, whether the result is comprehensive or paginated, or any side effects (though 'list' implies read-only). This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two pagination params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics but lacks usage context or relationship to sibling tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explicitly defines both 'limit' as the maximum number of results and 'offset' for pagination, with defaults matching the schema. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'applicant groups from Buildium', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_applicants or list_applicant_applications. It is unambiguous and exactly states the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not the intended context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and return format, but does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or behavioral constraints like sorting or filtering beyond the email parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose line, an Args section listing each parameter, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 3 optional parameters, and the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not detail the structure of the metadata or any constraints on the applicants returned, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: 'email: Optional email address to filter by', 'limit: Maximum number of results (default: 100)', 'offset: Offset for pagination (default: 0)'. This adds full meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List rental applicants from Buildium' with a specific verb and resource, making the primary action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_applicant or list_applicant_applications, though the resource name helps distinguish it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_applicant for a single applicant or list_applicant_applications for applications. It simply states the action and parameter details without any context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format ('Dictionary with rentals list and metadata') and pagination parameters, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention any ordering, or note potential rate limits or errors, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter and return documentation. Every sentence provides value, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return type. It is slightly incomplete in not explicitly noting the read-only nature or clarifying whether the list is all rentals or filterable, but overall it is sufficient for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description fills this gap by defining limit as 'Maximum number of results' and offset as 'Offset for pagination'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema defaults, though it could be more detailed about pagination behavior (e.g., zero-based offset).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'List rental properties from Buildium' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_leases or list_associations by naming the 'rental properties' entity, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_rental.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_rental or list_rental_units. The description only states the basic function without any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'Applicant details as dictionary,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., behavior for non-existent IDs), authorization needs, or side effects (though 'Get' implies read-only). This is acceptable for such a simple tool but lacks deeper disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and contains no redundant information. It matches the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, output schema available), the description covers the core purpose and return format. However, it lacks any guidance on usage context or error behavior, and the absence of annotations leaves some uncertainty about operational constraints. Overall, it is adequately complete for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema declares applicant_id as a required integer with no description. The description adds the meaning 'The applicant ID,' which is minimal given the self-explanatory parameter name. It does not provide any additional context such as where to find the ID or format expectations, so it barely compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'applicant' and specifies retrieval by ID, clearly distinguishing it from list_applicants (collection) and create_applicant/update_applicant (mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_applicants or other related tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. It relies entirely on the tool name and conventional 'get-by-ID' pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'get', which implies a read operation, but does not mention return format, error handling, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds no information beyond what the name suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a get-by-ID operation. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The description could mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the ID from list_bills), but this is not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says 'by ID', which clarifies that bill_id is the identifier of the bill. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description provides only minimal compensation for the parameter's meaning, lacking details on constraints or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a specific bill by ID', specifying the verb (get), resource (bill), and scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bills, create_bill, and update_bill.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific bill ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list bills, create/update). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when the payment is not found or whether the operation is safe. The description is adequate for a simple GET but lacks explicit safety confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. It could be more informative, but as a concise statement it is highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. The tool is simple, but the description does not explain the dual-parameter requirement or when to use it relative to siblings. The gaps in parameter semantics and usage guidance reduce completeness, but the core purpose is clear enough for a basic getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It says 'by ID' but does not mention that both bill_id and payment_id are required, making it ambiguous with two IDs. The parameter names in the schema provide some context, but the description fails to clarify the relationship between them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific bill payment'), clearly distinguishing it from list_bill_payments (which lists all) and create_bill_payment (which creates). The scope is explicit: fetch one entity by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving a single bill payment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_bill_payments or mention that both bill_id and payment_id are required. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, so guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states what the tool does and its return type, without mentioning error handling, auth requirements, side effects, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with three short sections (description, args, returns). Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers the essential purpose and return type. An output schema exists, so detailed return values need not be explained. However, it lacks any context about how to obtain the property_id or what happens for invalid IDs, which leaves a minor completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief explanation 'property_id: The property ID', which clarifies the parameter's meaning but adds no extra depth beyond what the schema already implies by name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a specific rental property by ID', using a specific verb (get), resource (rental property), and scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_rentals, create_rental, and get_rental_unit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a property ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like list_rentals. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving usage guidance mainly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not mention handling of non-existent IDs, authorization requirements, or any side effects. This adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action word 'Get'. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema that likely defines the return shape. The description, while minimal, adequately covers the core purpose. However, the lack of any explicit usage guidance and minimal parameter semantics leave small gaps, making it not perfectly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for 'unit_id' (0% coverage). The description's 'by ID' clarifies that unit_id is the identifier for the rental unit, adding minimal meaning. It does not explain expected format or prerequisites beyond the integer type in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get', names the resource 'rental unit', and specifies 'by ID', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from list operations (e.g., list_rental_units) and other get tools targeting different resources (e.g., get_rental).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific ... by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving a single unit by its identifier, not for listing. However, no explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor are any alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it merely restates the tool's name with the domain suffix, adding no details about pagination, sorting, filtering, or read-only semantics beyond the verb 'List'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and wastes zero tokens.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It does not explain return values, but the output schema exists to cover that, and the operation is straightforward. However, it lacks any mention of scope or limitations, which slightly reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but per the rubric a 0-param tool receives a baseline of 4 since no clarification is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('task categories'), explicitly scoped to 'Buildium'. This distinguishes it from other sibling list tools such as list_vendor_categories or list_file_categories, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any contextual triggers, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support for selecting this specific tool among the many list_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no provided annotations, the description relies on the verb 'Get' to convey a read operation and adds that the return is a dictionary. It does not disclose error behavior for non-existent IDs or any access restrictions, but for a simple getter the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main sentence, and then uses 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every word earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description fully covers the main purpose and return format. It doesn't address edge cases like not-found behavior, but the presence of an output schema provides the expected lease structure, making this adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only repeats the parameter name ('lease_id') and labels it as 'The lease ID,' which adds little meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema has no property descriptions and coverage is 0%, the description should provide more detail (e.g., type, constraints, purpose) but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') on a specific resource ('a specific lease') using an identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from list_leases (which retrieves all leases) and create/update_lease (which modify).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the 'get by ID' phrasing: use this when you have a known lease_id and need the full lease details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to list_leases for broader queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying safety and behavior. It reasonably implies a read-only list operation and explains pagination, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or describe any error handling or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes necessary information for using the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential input and return information. However, it could be more complete by briefly explaining what a 'unit listing' is or how it differs from related resources, aiding the agent in selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully explains both parameters, including defaults and semantics ('Maximum number of results', 'Offset for pagination'), which the input schema lacks (coverage 0%). This adds real value beyond the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'unit listings' from Buildium. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar list tools for other entities or clarify the unique nature of 'unit listings' versus rental/association units.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or contexts that make it the appropriate choice, unlike examples that explicitly name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic read operation. It does not mention error handling, authentication, access scoping, or the response format if no vendor is found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and communicates the essential action quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present, so the short description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks any note about not-found behavior or usage nuances, which a more complete description would include.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning by reinforcing that vendor_id is the identifier ('by ID'), which is helpful but still essentially a restatement of the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific vendor by ID' clearly states the action (get), the resource (vendor), and the scope (specific, by ID), which distinguishes it from list_vendors (listing all), create_vendor, and update_vendor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: when a vendor ID is known and a single vendor is needed. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude scenarios, so it's just below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, whether it returns all categories, or any response characteristics (e.g., sorting, pagination). This is a minimal gap for a simple tool but a gap nonetheless.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and waste-free. It provides exactly the necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete for an agent to understand the tool's basic purpose. It does not explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It could optionally mention 'all' categories, but the lack of parameters implies a full listing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information because there is nothing to describe. The baseline of 4 for 0 params is appropriate, as the description cannot add more value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('file categories'), and specifies the system ('Buildium'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_files' (which lists files themselves) and 'create_file_category'/'update_file_category' (which mutate categories).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool name and description are self-explanatory, and there is no sibling tool that also lists file categories, making the usage context implicitly clear. Still, it falls short of explicitly mentioning exclusions or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it returns a dictionary with leases list and metadata, and mentions optional filters and pagination. However, it does not disclose access control, sorting behavior, or any side effects, and there are no annotations to supplement this. It is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with Args and Returns sections, each line adding value by documenting a parameter or return format. It is efficient but slightly verbose due to listing all parameters; still appropriate given the schema's lack of descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return fields, but it still confirms the return type. Given that all parameters are optional and straightforward, the description sufficiently covers the tool's context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section explicitly describes each of the five parameters, including their purpose and defaults (e.g., limit default 100, offset default 0). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, providing clear semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The name 'list_leases' and description 'List leases from Buildium' clearly define the operation and resource. It differentiates from get_lease (single) and create/update leases, and from list_lease_transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_lease or list_lease_transactions. The description does not mention scenarios for filtering or when to use pagination parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('dictionary'), which adds some transparency, but it does not describe error behavior, authorization requirements, or other side effects. For a simple get operation, this is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by minimal Args/Returns sections. Every line earns its place and it is front-loaded with the core behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough context: it identifies the tool, its input, and return type. It lacks error-handling details, but those are not critical for a straightforward fetch operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the only parameter (association_id) is self-explanatory. The description's 'The association ID' adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and schema type. It does not compensate heavily, but the parameter is trivial, so a middle score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a specific association by ID', which is a specific verb+resource with a precise scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_associations by indicating it retrieves a single entity by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a known association_id and need a single record, distinct from list_associations. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (dictionary with list) and pagination defaults, but does not mention permissions, ordering, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics. Adequate for a simple list operation, but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-organized with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides useful information without filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, including pagination and return format. It could mention sorting or error cases, but overall it is sufficient for this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: association_id identifies the target, limit caps results, and offset handles pagination. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('ownership accounts'), and the scope ('for a specific association'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_association_owners and list_associations, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need ownership accounts for a particular association, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives among the many sibling list tools. The context is present but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset and defaults) and mentions the return shape (dictionary with list and metadata), which adds value beyond the raw schema. However, it does not mention authorization, sorted order, or any side-effect-free guarantee, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no extraneous information. The format makes it easy to scan and understand the tool's interface.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the core behavior, parameter semantics, and return type. It could be more complete by mentioning potential filtering options or authorization, but these are not essential for a basic list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters with meaningful semantics: limit ('Maximum number of results') and offset ('Offset for pagination'), along with defaults. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions (0% coverage) and makes the parameters understandable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('List associations') and resource ('from Buildium'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_association (single item) and create/update_association (mutations), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by its name and simple listing intent, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_association for a single association). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Dictionary with transactions list') and pagination behavior via limit/offset defaults. It does not mention ordering, error conditions, or explicitly state it is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, structured with Args and Returns sections, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return type. It lacks edge-case details like ordering or filtering options, but these are not critical for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: lease_id as 'The lease ID', limit as 'Maximum number of results', offset as 'Offset for pagination'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List transactions for a specific lease' with a clear verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_bank_account_transactions and list_leases by specifying lease-specific transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the purpose: to list transactions for a lease. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no reference to related tools like list_bank_account_transactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention pagination or other behaviors. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but is minimally adequate for a zero-parameter list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It conveys exactly what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It identifies the resource and source clearly, and the output schema covers return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('vendor categories') with a clear source ('from Buildium'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vendors and list_task_categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'List' — use it when you need vendor categories. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, and no mention of complementary create/update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-buildium MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luthersystems/mcp-server-buildium/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luthersystems/mcp-server-buildium)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-buildium MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luthersystems/mcp-server-buildium/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luthersystems/mcp-server-buildium)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/luthersystems/mcp-server-buildium'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server