get_deed_parties

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool returns (buyer/grantee and seller/grantor) and the data source (ACRIS deed records). However, it implies a read-only lookup without explicitly stating it, and it fails to address the apparent discrepancy between 'NYC property' and the schema's 'philadelphia' enum value, leaving room for confusion about scope.

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 sentences with the primary action front-loaded. No filler or repetition. Every clause contributes, and the 'Use when...' clause is a practical addition. This is appropriately 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description addresses purpose and when-to-use, but does not explain return format, error behavior, or the city/borough relationship. Given the missing structured metadata, the description should be more explicit about edge cases and the mismatch in the city enum.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool works with deed records, but it does not elaborate on how to format the address or when the optional borough parameter should be included. The city enum discrepancy is not clarified, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up buyer (grantee) and seller (grantor) for a NYC property from ACRIS deed records.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_property or search_sales, which are broader. The only minor confusion is the schema allows 'philadelphia' while the description says 'NYC,' but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 states an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user specifically asks who bought or sold a property.' This gives clear context for when to select the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or cases where it should not be used (e.g., when a broader property search is needed), so it falls short of a 5.

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