Compare listings

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 mentions 'normalised' which hints at output formatting, but does not explain behavior on missing listings, invalid IDs, return structure, or failure modes. 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.

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word adds value.

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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description gives the core purpose but lacks details on output format, enrichment meaning, or edge cases. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'listings' parameter described as 'Two or more {portal, portalListingId} pairs.' The description adds context about what the comparison covers (price, EPC, etc.) but does not elaborate on parameter syntax beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 function: normalized side-by-side comparison of several listings on specific attributes (price, £/sqft, EPC, enrichment). It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like find_comparables.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_comparables or search_listings. The description implies usage for comparing chosen listings, but provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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