property_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, and it does: it calls all sources in parallel and marks missing ones. This gives the agent insight into potential performance and handling of incomplete data, which is useful beyond what the schema shows.

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 concise and front-loads the main purpose. It includes extra behavioral details efficiently. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage from behavior), but it is compact and informative.

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?

Given the tool aggregates many sources, the description is fairly complete for basic understanding. It lacks details on parameter formats, examples, or how results are structured, but since there is no output schema, some return format context might be needed. The parallel call behavior is a plus.

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, but it only mentions 'a Danish address' and offers no specifics about how 'query' or 'addressId' are used. It does not clarify whether both are required, alternative, or how they relate, leaving ambiguity for parameter selection.

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 it builds a compact combined report for a Danish address, which is specific and distinct from siblings that fetch individual data types. It also mentions that it calls all sources in parallel and marks missing ones, adding valuable detail that sets it apart.

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 used when a combined report is needed, contrasting with siblings that may be used for specific data types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context from the sibling list makes the purpose clear.

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