property.nyc-deed-history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions documentId and URL pattern but omits details like read-only nature, error handling, authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for safe autonomous use.

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?

Two concise sentences with context upfront. Every word adds value. No redundancy or filler. Perfectly structured for quick parsing.

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 simple list tool without output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a hint about the response structure (documentId, URL pattern). However, it lacks details on error responses, pagination, and the full data returned. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 only 33% (only 'bbl' described). The description adds no information about 'limit' or 'offset', which are standard pagination parameters but their meaning and usage are not explained. Low schema coverage requires more compensation from description.

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 'NYC ACRIS deed + mortgage history for a BBL', specifying the verb (get history), resource (deed+mortgage), and scope (BBL). It distinguishes from siblings like property.nyc-parcel-lookup, property.nyc-permits, etc., which cover different data types.

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 description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Given several sibling property tools, the absence of usage context is a gap.

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