property_report

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It discloses the content returned, which is helpful, but it does not state whether the tool is strictly read-only, how it behaves if data is missing for a section, or any latency or error traits. The description is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that uses an em-dash list to communicate the tool's scope efficiently. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema and a moderate parameter set, so the description does not need to explain return structure. However, it leaves parameter semantics and usage boundaries to inference, and with no annotations the overall context is a bit thin for a tool that aggregates multiple data sources.

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 its two required parameters, and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'this address' and 'DLS coordinates,' which implies city and roll_number identify the property, but it never defines what a roll_number is, its expected format, or how city relates to it. An agent would need external knowledge to invoke it correctly.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('consolidated property report'), and lists the distinct data domains it combines: assessment data, building permits, zoning information, and DLS coordinates. This clearly differentiates it from narrower siblings like building_permit_search or zoning_lookup.

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 phrase 'consolidated property report' and 'in a single response' signals when this tool should be chosen instead of making separate calls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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