get_property_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses the data categories returned (tax history, owner info, sale history), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations, which would be expected for full transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a clearly separated Args section. Every piece of text contributes to understanding purpose and input, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the simple one-parameter interface and the availability of an output schema (which likely details return structure), the description is quite complete. It specifies the key data returned and provides an example input. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings, but overall it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description provides an example address ('5500 Grand Lake Dr, San Antonio, TX, 78244') and labels it as a 'full property address', going beyond the schema's minimal type declaration. This gives the agent a clear template for constructing valid input, which is valuable given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Get property records including tax history, owner info, and sale history for an address.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the listed data types distinguish it from sibling tools like get_property_value or get_rent_estimate. It makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it is for retrieving comprehensive property records (tax history, owner info, sale history) for a given address. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_property_value, but the data coverage implies a use case distinct from simple value or rent estimation.

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