NYC building report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive scope context the annotations cannot convey: which datasets are aggregated (HPD violations with A/B/C classes, bed bug filings, 311 complaints), and an explicit 24-month window for 311 data. It stops short of noting latency, cost, or behavior for unmatched addresses, which matters for a multi-source aggregation call.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and then enumerates contents; every listed item is load-bearing information about the return payload. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the record categories and the 24-month window. Minor gaps remain around response size/shape and behavior when the address is ambiguous or not found.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already supplies the format guidance and an example address. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (full public-records report for an NYC residential building) and enumerates exactly which record sets are included, which is far more specific than a generic 'get building data'. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the siblings lookup_building or red_flags, so an agent must infer the difference from the breadth of the enumeration.

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?

Usage is only implied: the breadth of the enumeration suggests this is the comprehensive option versus a narrower lookup, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative tool is named. With two relevant siblings present, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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