crehq_site_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns every brand that ever occupied the address and the timing, which conveys the core behavioral contract. It omits output format details but remains sufficiently transparent for a read-only query tool.

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 core function is front-loaded, but the descriptive quality suffers from marketing language ('FLAGSHIP DIFFERENTIATOR', 'Unmatched', 'No other location dataset...') that adds emphasis rather than instruction. The example is useful, but the hype could be trimmed.

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 gives enough context for a single-parameter tool: what it returns, the temporal range, and example use cases. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return semantics, though it does not specify empty-result behavior or ordering details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well documented. The description only restates that site_uid identifies the physical site, adding no new semantic detail 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 states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('full chronological tenancy history') for a given physical site. It clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing address-level succession, explicitly noting no other location dataset reconstructs this.

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 provides clear use cases ('backfill/teardown analysis, second-generation space, and landlord due diligence'), which signal when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.