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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by stating the record is public, noting the 'worst building where available' caveat, and explaining that the returned URL lists all owned buildings with per-building records.

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 tight and front-loaded: it opens with the tool's purpose, lists the key data fields, then covers input forms and output behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or fluff.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, inputs, example identifier, and output characteristics, leaving no major gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and property descriptions already define the parameters. The description adds a concrete example ('SMITH REALTY LLC') and clarifies the owner name should appear exactly as it does in a building report, which supplements the schema's meaning for slugOrName.

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 as fetching a public record for a landlord/property owner and enumerates the key data points: portfolio size, violations, 311 complaints, average building score, and worst building. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_building_report, which target individual buildings.

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 makes clear when this tool is appropriate: when you need landlord-level portfolio data rather than a single building report. It also specifies acceptable identifier forms (owner name or landlord page slug). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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