get_owner_directory_report

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 that the tool returns all owners (subject to filters) and that it's a report retrieval. It also warns about parameter formats. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, auth requirements, or pagination behavior.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and critical usage notes. It could be slightly more streamlined, but every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the high-level behavior and parameter constraints. However, it lacks details about the output format, whether the report is paginated, or if it runs synchronously. More context would improve completeness.

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 100%, but the description adds critical clarifications: IDs must be numeric strings, and the tags parameter is for system tags only, not for name search. This prevents misuse that the schema alone might not prevent.

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 retrieves a directory report of property owners and distinguishes it from other report tools by emphasizing it returns ALL owners with optional filters. It also clarifies that specific name searches should be done client-side, differentiating it from potential search tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use (to get a comprehensive directory) and how to use parameters correctly, including warnings that IDs must be numeric strings and tags are for system tags only. This helps avoid common mistakes.

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