get_hpd_litigations

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It lists returned data types but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or behavior on invalid inputs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, concise at 5 sentences, but includes some redundant emphasis on regulatory risk.

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 no output schema, description lists key returned fields (case types, findings, etc.), but could be more complete about the output structure.

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 0% schema coverage and the description does not mention it or explain its format/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?

Clearly states 'Get HPD litigation history' and differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., get_hpd_complaints) by specifying it covers cases where HPD sued the owner. Also explains that only worst-offending buildings are litigated, which adds context.

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?

Implies usage for investors evaluating regulatory risk and notes that HPD only litigates worst-offending buildings, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or mention when not to use.

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