get_property_valuation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'AI-powered' and has a price ('$5.00'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid inputs, rate limits, or authentication requirements for a paid service.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, price) and uses minimal sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the args section explains parameters, returns describes output, and price discloses cost. No wasted words, though slightly more front-loading could improve it.

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 has an output schema (so returns are documented elsewhere) and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does an adequate job. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and cost. However, for a paid tool with no annotations, it should more explicitly state behavioral expectations like error handling or usage limits to be fully complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'address: Property street address' and 'property_id: Or property ID if known.' The 'Or' clarifies these are alternatives, which is valuable information not in the schema. However, it doesn't specify format requirements or constraints.

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 AI-powered property valuation estimate.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('property valuation estimate'), and the 'AI-powered' qualifier adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which appear unrelated to property valuation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or relationships with sibling tools. The only implicit usage hint is that it's for property valuation, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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