find_dvf_neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the rolling window and access restriction, but omits behavior details such as what 'top' means, whether permits must exist, output format, or data freshness.

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 three sentences front-loaded with action. The second sentence adds value by explaining the purpose, and the third states an important restriction. No waste.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, the meaning of 'top,' or how parameters like limit and min_year affect results.

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 25% (type_local has a description). The description adds no meaning for limit or min_year, and only implies that num_pa is a permit number. It fails to compensate for the 75% schema coverage gap.

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 the tool returns top neighboring DVF transactions for a permit, with a rolling 5-year window, and explains its purpose for property value estimation. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like get_permit_details.

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 only mentions a plan restriction (Plan Pro+ uniquement) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_permits or get_existing_buildings.

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