sg_property_analyze

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses paid nature ('PAID — auto-pay if wallet configured'), data sources, and output (verdict with risk flags). This provides critical behavioral context beyond what the schema gives.

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 dense and front-loaded with key value proposition. Minimal fluff, though the mention of future region expansion could be seen as slightly extraneous.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers scope, data sources, paid status, and output nature. Lacks specifics on response format but is adequate for a comprehensive analysis tool.

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 85%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds overview context but doesn't provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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?

Description states 'COMPLETE property investment analysis in one call' and lists specific components (stamp duty, HDB comparables, rental yield, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sg_stamp_duty, sg_affordability, which are more focused.

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 implies use for comprehensive analysis and notes it's the most comprehensive endpoint, but does not explicitly state when to use sibling tools instead or exclude scenarios. However, the context is clear enough.

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