parcel-edge

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It honestly discloses that loan absence is unverified and that this is a time-boxed watchlist re-checked as financing appears, which is critical behavioral context for a leads tool. The description adds transparency about limitations without contradicting any missing annotations.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the primary purpose and including essential transparency. The use of all caps for 'HONEST' is a bit stylized but not harmful. It could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description lists the fields returned (permit amount, age, window status, applicant, work description) and covers the data's provenance and limitations. It is largely complete for a leads tool, though it could mention pagination or limit behavior.

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 low (33% for county), and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'minTier' parameters. It only repeats the county parameter's enum. The description adds no meaningful insight into parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states it provides fresh assessable construction permits entering the permit-to-financing window, targeting hard-money and construction lenders. The resource (construction permits) and verb (provides leads) are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like county_coverage or lien_bundle_report.

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?

Description implies the tool is for tracking construction permits for lending opportunities, with context about the permit-to-loan gap and Cook County. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings are clearly different tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. However, it only lists the output content ('Covered counties...') without indicating side effects, cost, or access restrictions beyond 'Free'. No mention of idempotency, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the key items. It is concise without wasted words, but the structure could be improved by breaking into a clearer statement (e.g., 'Returns coverage data including...').

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 no output schema or annotations, the description provides reasonable context for a simple data retrieval tool. However, it lacks details on output format, interpretation of signal-density notes, and how the data can be used.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per guidelines, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description provides context about the output but does not add parameter-level meaning since none exist.

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 provides coverage details including counties, streams, buyers, data sources, methodology, and signal-density notes. The content is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on leads, flags, and reports.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions 'Free' but provides no context for usage conditions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is 'NEVER a fraud verdict' and that it provides a 'Full owner/exemption EVIDENCE CHAIN', which clarifies the non-conclusive nature of the output. This adds value beyond the tool name and input schema.

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 verbose and includes detailed county-specific logic that could be streamlined. While it is front-loaded with the core concept, the subsequent examples and caveats make it longer than necessary for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers core purpose and county constraints but lacks details on output format or behavior of specific parameters like 'limit'. Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), more context on return values would improve completeness, especially for agents deciding how to invoke it.

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 only 33% (county has a description). The description mentions counties in text, reinforcing that parameter, but does not explain 'limit' or 'minTier' (enum values high/medium/low). It fails to compensate for low schema coverage, leaving agent uncertain about parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it flags parcels where a residential/homestead exemption coexists with a non-owner-occupant owner, indicating possible improper exemptions. The verb 'FLAGS' and resource 'exemption-contradiction' are specific, and the context of counties and target contractors differentiates it from siblings like 'overassessment_leads' or 'construction_window_leads'.

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 provides explicit county constraints (only six counties) and the primary use case (exemption audit contractors). However, it does not compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving ambiguity for the agent to decide between similar offerings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It details the report's contents (unsatisfied lien stack, per-tax body split, tax-year span, redemption posture) and limitations (not a title opinion). It does not mention error handling or data freshness but is otherwise transparent.

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 verbose (5 sentences) including technical details like statutory references and cost comparisons. Although front-loaded with key info, it could be more concise without losing essential meaning.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return values (surviving lien stack, per-tax body split, tax-year span interpretation, redemption posture) and provides usage warnings. It is complete for an agent to decide invocation and interpret results.

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 single parameter 'pin' has schema coverage of 100% with an example. The description adds that it's for a single Allegheny County PA PIN, which is consistent but does not add substantial value beyond the schema.

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 it provides a per-parcel tax-deed title-research report for a single Allegheny County PA PIN, returning unsatisfied tax liens. It specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource 'report', and distinguishes itself from siblings (other tools are about leads, flags, etc.) and from a title opinion.

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 provides context: it's an investor desk tool, paid with free preview, and warns it's a candidate input not a title opinion, advising confirmation with county/counsel. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools, but the specialization makes misuse unlikely.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses data source (public data), confirmation by firm, and disclaimer (not legal advice). It lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool this is adequate.

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?

Concise and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the core. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. Efficient use of space.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the lead concept, data limitations, and alternative tools. It could include output format details, but the mention of 'scored, dated, deadline-stamped' provides sufficient context.

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% with each parameter described. The tool description adds context about county types but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 returns 'Scored, dated, deadline-stamped COMMERCIAL property-tax over-assessment leads' with a specific condition (assessor value exceeds sale price). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'exemption_flags' by noting its use in non-disclosure counties.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (counties publishing sale prices) and when-not-to-use (Texas/Georgia non-disclosure counties, with alternative suggested: exemption_flags). This is exemplary guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is free and computes certain values, but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid PINs. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though slightly dense.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key inputs and outputs. It lacks return format details, but is sufficient for a straightforward check 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?

Only one parameter 'pin' with schema coverage 100%. The schema already describes it as '14-digit Cook County PIN'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema's definition, remaining at the baseline.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'a SINGLE Cook County PIN (14-digit) for over-assessment', listing the specific computed outputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like overassessment_leads which likely handle multiple PINs.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for single PIN checks, but alternatives like overassessment_leads for multiple PINs are not mentioned. Context is implied but not clarified.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It honestly explains that 'stalled' is a STATUS+RECENCY inference, not verified work-stoppage, and notes potential false positives (paperwork lag, phased builds). It also clarifies that some counties return null. This is high transparency, though it lacks details on rate limits or auth.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but it is verbose and uses all-caps for emphasis, which may reduce readability. Some details (e.g., 'Cook County' repeated) could be trimmed. It earns its sentences but could be more concise.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it lists output fields (permit amount, age, etc.), explains data source, and notes county limitations. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity, though parameter descriptions would improve it.

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 33% (only 'county' has a description). The tool has 3 parameters, but the description does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'minTier' beyond what the schema provides. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The output context is described, but parameter semantics are lacking.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing STALLED-PROJECT candidates for surety/draw-control firms and lenders. It specifies the criteria (large assessable building permits not closed past build window) and distinguishes it from a general permit stream by noting the inference and data source.

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 for Cook County only (county parameter is cook-il) and mentions that counties not exposing permit status return null. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'construction_window_leads' or 'overassessment_leads'. Context is provided but no direct guidance.

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