get_property_history

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

The description explains the data sources (DOF for sales, ACRIS for ownership) and what fields are shown, indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or permissions, which would be helpful given the lack of annotations.

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 three short sentences, with the purpose first, then data sources, then use case. No redundant information; each sentence adds value. It is well-structured and 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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (sale prices, dates, buyer/seller names, document types) and the data sources. It could be more complete by explaining how the include_* parameters affect the output, but overall it is sufficient for a look-up 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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of parameters (e.g., bbl, include_sales, doc_type_filter). The description only provides high-level context about the tool's outputs, not the input parameters.

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 it gets the history of a NYC property including sales and ownership transfers, specifically from DOF and ACRIS records. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other aspects like permits, complaints, tax info, etc.

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 says 'Use this to understand a property's transaction history and price trajectory,' clarifying its applicability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related but distinct purposes.

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