Municipal Property Violations

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

Despite annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral context: starts an Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and informs the agent of side effects and limitations.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, exclusions, and behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping and usage constraints are front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, its side effects, and its constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with each parameter (cities, status, maxRecordsPerCity) already described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose: 'Use for municipal building, property, and code-violation research in supported jurisdictions.' It names a specific verb (use for) and resource (building/property/code-violation research), and differentiates from siblings by explicitly excluding STR licensing and restaurant health inspections.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use for municipal...' and 'Do not use for STR licensing or restaurant health inspections; choose the corresponding permit or inspection tool.' This directs the agent to alternatives without ambiguity.

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