sg_property_pitch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid and auto-pays if a wallet is configured, which is critical for an AI agent to understand before invocation. It also describes the broad behavioral output (a pitch combining multiple analyses). It does not explicitly state it is read-only or list rate limits, but the paid nature implies no destructive action. The transparency is good given the complexity.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, list key components, and note the paid nature. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately outlines the tool's purpose and inputs. However, it does not describe the output format or structure beyond 'one-page analysis' and 'plain-English verdict'. With no output schema, more detail on the return value would improve completeness. The paid aspect is noted, but prerequisites (wallet configuration) are only implied.

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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how the parameters are used together ('Combines price fairness... stamp duty breakdown, MAS affordability check...'), beyond the individual field descriptions. This helps an agent understand which parameters are relevant for the pitch output.

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 ('Generate a complete property investment pitch') and specifies what it combines (price fairness, stamp duty, MAS affordability, rental yield, location intelligence, tenure risk, verdict). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be the 'highest-value output for property agents and investors'.

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 when a comprehensive property pitch is needed, calling it a 'one-page analysis' and 'highest-value output'. It mentions a paid model, but does not explicitly list when to use alternatives like sg_property_analyze or sg_affordability. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer this is the go-to for a full pitch.

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