get_property_valuation

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 adds valuable context beyond basic functionality by warning about potential limitations: 'RentCast API may return basic property data instead of detailed valuations depending on subscription tier.' This informs the agent about variability in output based on external factors, which is crucial for managing expectations, though it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and a key behavioral trait (subscription tier impact), but lacks details on parameters, output format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it adequate but not fully comprehensive for reliable agent use.

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 description does not mention the 'property_id' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the tool's purpose implies that 'property_id' identifies the property, but no specific details (e.g., format, source) are provided, leaving a gap in understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get valuation data for a specific property.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('valuation data for a specific property'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_rent_estimate' or 'get_property_data', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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

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

The description provides some implied usage guidance by noting that 'RentCast API may return basic property data instead of detailed valuations depending on subscription tier.' This suggests when results might be limited, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_property_data' or 'get_rent_estimate', nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions.

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