Apartment red flags

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the data source (city records) and the return shape (a plain-English verdict capped at 3 concerns), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about freshness, coverage limits, or what happens when records are 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the deliverable (verdict + top 3 concerns) is front-loaded before the usage cue. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the definition covers the essentials: what it returns, that it is capped at 3 items, and that it is a quick triage signal. With no output schema, a brief note on what the 'concerns' actually are (violations, complaints, etc.) would close the remaining gap.

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, including a concrete address example, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the address argument, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource: it produces a plain-English verdict on an NYC building drawn from city records, and it scopes the output to the top 3 concerns. That is far more concrete than the title alone, though it never names lookup_building or building_report, so the agent must infer the distinction from the 'top 3 / quick' framing rather than being told.

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?

It states a clear use context: 'Use this for a quick "should I worry?" answer,' which routes triage-style questions here. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the fuller-report alternative, so the when-not case is left implicit.

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