property_top

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns full assessment details for each result') and ranking semantics, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, how min/max_value affect results, or edge-case behavior. Core behavior is transparent, but operational nuance is missing.

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?

Two brief sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, the second provides the use case and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is adequate for the basic query case, and the output schema covers return details. However, with no annotations and six parameters, the meaning of min_value, max_value, and order is left to inference, so the description is not fully complete for correct invocation in all intended uses.

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 explains sort_by options ('assessed value, year built, or lot size') and implies city and n through 'top-N in a city,' but it leaves order, min_value, and max_value undefined. With six parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 states a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('top-N properties in a city'), and explicit sort dimensions ('assessed value, year built, or lot size'). It clearly reads as a ranking/list tool and is easily distinguished from the sibling search and report tools.

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 gives clear use-case context: 'Perfect for finding the most expensive, oldest, or largest properties.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the purpose is concrete enough for an agent to route correctly.

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