sg_property_rank

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details enrichment with stamp duty, transaction comps, rental yield, affordability, location data, and returns ranked scores across 4 dimensions. It also flags PAID status. No contradictions.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently covers enrichment, scoring dimensions, and use case. The PAID note is relevant but could be slightly integrated.

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?

With 5 parameters, nested input, and no output schema, the description explains the return value (ranked list with scores) but lacks details on output structure or data format. It is adequate for a ranking tool but not fully complete given the complexity.

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 80%. The description adds context to some parameters like region (SG supported now, others planned) and candidates (max 50, min 1). However, it doesn't elaborate on parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ranks multiple candidate properties by investment value, accepts properties from any source, and enriches with multiple data dimensions. It distinguishes itself as the 'decision layer' versus sibling tools like sg_property_analyze which likely analyze a single property.

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?

It explicitly says this is the decision layer after gathering listings, and mentions PAID/auto-pay. It doesn't explicitly exclude use cases, but the context and sibling names imply when to use (after gathering) and not to use (before or for single property analysis).

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