property.nyc-parcel-lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only lookup returning specific fields and data source (PLUTO). However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on no match/multiple matches, leaving some ambiguity about the result structure.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second explains parameters and join key. Every word adds value, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the two lookup modes and key fields, but lacks details on return format (single object vs array), error handling, or behavior for ambiguous address matches. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 67%, but the tool description adds meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies the bbl format (10-digit Borough-Block-Lot), that address is partial and can be constrained by borough (listing codes), and that the BBL is a join key. The address parameter, lacking schema description, is well explained here.

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's a NYC tax-lot lookup via PLUTO, listing specific data fields returned (owner, zoning, area, etc.) and two lookup methods (bbl exact or address+borough). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting the BBL as a universal join key for property.nyc-deed-history, nyc-permits, and nyc-violations.

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 explains when to use bbl vs address+borough for lookup, and implicitly suggests using this tool first to obtain the BBL for subsequent queries to sibling property tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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