property.nyc-violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only query by stating 'Filter' and 'Returns', but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The return format is partially described, but depth is missing.

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 relatively concise, with the main topic front-loaded ('NYC HPD housing violations'). It efficiently combines purpose, filter options, and return fields in a few sentences. Minor improvement could separate conceptual purpose from parameter details.

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 adequately lists return fields (address, apartment, story, dates, status, narrative). It covers key filtering parameters. However, it omits standard pagination behavior (limit/offset) and error conditions, but for a list tool with low complexity, this is acceptable.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning for classCode (A=least severe through C=immediately hazardous) and currentStatusOnly (open violations), clarifying their purpose. However, it does not explain bbl, address, limit, or offset, leaving those to the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 providing NYC HPD housing violations, with specific filtering options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like property.nyc-permits by focusing on violations. However, it could be more explicit in stating the primary action (e.g., 'Retrieve') rather than just describing the data.

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 mentions filtering by bbl, address, classCode, and currentStatusOnly, which indicates when to use the tool (when violation data is needed). However, it does not provide context on when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, such as property.nyc-deed-history for deed information.

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