rwa_realestate

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

No annotations provided. The description only includes pricing and API endpoint, but no behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose any behavioral context.

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 short but not concise in a helpful way. It includes pricing and an API link, which are not essential for understanding the tool's purpose or usage. The title-like content does not earn its place.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what the 'query' parameter expects (e.g., address, city, property ID), or any context about the data source.

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% (one required parameter 'query' described as '查询条件' in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 only states 'RWA不动产数据' (RWA real estate data), which is vague. It does not specify what kind of real estate data (e.g., prices, listings) or what action the tool performs (e.g., search, get). No differentiation from sibling tools like rwa_bond or rwa_commodity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many other RWA tools and general tools, but there is no explicit mention of use cases or exclusions.

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