property_sample

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 reveals that the response is 'canned' (a fixed sample), that no API key is required, and specifies the exact address and context (heritage terrace with DA activity). This adds valuable context about what to expect, though it could also mention that the response is static and not a live lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core promise ('Complete real Property Intelligence response, no API key required'). Each sentence adds relevant information—what the tool returns and why you would use it. There is no wasted or redundant text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, zero-parameter sample tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, the use case, the sample address, and that an output schema can be inspected. The presence of an output schema means the return shape is already structured, so the description does not need to enumerate fields. It could slightly improve by explicitly linking to the property_intelligence tool, but the sibling list makes that connection implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameters. The input schema is empty, and the description appropriately focuses on the output. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is applied for tools with no parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states it returns a 'Complete real Property Intelligence response' for a specific address (163 Grattan St, Carlton VIC), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself as a sample tool that does not require an API key, differentiating it from sibling tools like property_intelligence and property_flood_sample.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear use case: 'so you can inspect the full response shape before requesting a key.' It implies the tool is for pre-API-key inspection, but it does not explicitly compare itself to other sample tools or state when not to use it. That said, the guidance is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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