APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what gets returned ('address, price, specs, photos') since no output schema exists, and notes the data source ('RapidAPI / Realtor.com data'). However, it omits safety declarations (read-only status), rate limiting, or pagination behavior details that would help an agent manage API quotas.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: action+filters, return values, and data source. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the primary action ('Search active for-sale property listings') appearing first.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload ('address, price, specs, photos'). It notes the geographic scope (US) and data provenance. It could be improved by noting that all parameters are optional (required=0) or providing guidance on efficient pagination strategies, but it covers the essential 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description lists the filterable fields (city, state, ZIP, etc.) which aligns with the schema, but does not add additional semantic guidance—such as the mutual exclusivity between postal_code and city+state pairs, or the default values—that isn't already present in the schema 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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Search' followed by the clear resource 'active for-sale property listings' and scope 'across the US'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'realestate.property.details' (which implies fetching a specific record) by emphasizing the search/filter nature and listing multiple filterable criteria.

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 usage by listing available filters (city, state, ZIP, etc.), suggesting when to use it (when searching with those criteria). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use sibling tools like 'realestate.property.details' instead, or prerequisites like requiring at least one location parameter (city+state or postal_code).

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