get_hpd_complaints

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it notes historical depth and potential data differences from NYC Open Data. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). The description adds value but leaves gaps.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add context about usage and data depth without excessive verbosity. It earns its place, though the note about historical depth could be slightly tighter.

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 tool has 6 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It explains the data source and use case but omits parameter details, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions categories like 'PLUMBING' and 'HEAT/HOT WATER' but does not describe other parameters (bbl, status, since_date, limit, include_summary). The explanation of 'BBL' is absent, and parameter meanings rely on names alone, which is insufficient.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'HPD tenant complaints and reported problems for a property'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dob_complaints and get_311_complaints by specifying 'HPD' and 'tenant complaints', making the 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 suggests using this tool alongside violations to assess building condition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, missing a clear decision framework.

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