analyze_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses concurrent data combining from 14 sources, but does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or potential rate limits. This is a moderate disclosure for a read-heavy aggregate tool.

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 sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence provides usage guidance, making it highly concise.

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 complexity of aggregating 14 sources and only one parameter, the description adequately captures the tool's purpose and when to use it. However, it lacks details about output format, processing time, or any constraints, which would be beneficial for a comprehensive tool.

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 single parameter 'bbl' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description provides no additional meaning. The abbreviation is domain-specific but not explained, leaving the agent to infer its format and purpose.

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 generates a comprehensive due diligence summary for a NYC property, listing 14 data sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are individual source-specific tools, making its aggregate 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?

It explicitly advises using this tool for a complete picture for investment analysis. While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the sibling context implicitly guides agents to use individual tools for single-source needs.

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