get_property_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It includes a detailed note about historical data retention explaining why totals may exceed NYC's public data, which is excellent transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention authentication requirements.

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 first paragraph is concise. The second paragraph, while important for transparency, is somewhat lengthy but earned. Overall, minimal redundancy and front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to cover parameter semantics, which are important for correct invocation. It provides good behavioral context and purpose, but the parameter gap lowers completeness given the tool's complexity (7 parameters).

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It does not describe any of the 7 parameters (bbl, source, status, etc.) or their meanings, leaving the agent to infer from schema names and types alone.

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 retrieves HPD, DOB, and ECB/OATH violations for a property, and mentions it returns summary counts and details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hpd_complaints which focus on single complaint types.

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 recommends using this to assess a building's regulatory risk profile, providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_dob_complaints for specific violations.

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