get_tax_benefits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns certain benefit types, which is essentially a restatement of output. It does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or behaviors such as how property identification works or what happens if no benefits exist. The mismatch between 'NYC' and the city enum further obscures behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core action and then listing the returned benefit types. It contains no redundant wording or unnecessary details, achieving high efficiency for its limited scope.

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 does not adequately explain how to construct a query (e.g., address vs. block/lot) or how to handle the Philadelphia option, and it lacks output schema to clarify the response structure. This makes it insufficiently complete for a tool with six parameters and no structured output schema, especially given the NYC/Philadelphia ambiguity.

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 already provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and instead introduces a potential conflict by insisting on 'NYC' while the schema permits both nyc and philadelphia. This could mislead an agent on the valid values for the 'city' parameter, reducing the value of the description.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('tax exemptions and abatements'), and lists specific benefit programs (421a, J-51, ICAP, STAR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_property and search_sales. However, the description specifies 'NYC property' while the schema allows city=philadelphia, creating a minor inconsistency that is not addressed.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving tax benefits but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives such as search_properties or get_property. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, relying on the tool name and description to imply context. This meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks clear context.

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