building_violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses: returns a server-side per-class count summary plus most recent violations, street matched as uppercase substring, house number matched exactly, keyless, optional token raises rate limit. This is excellent behavioral detail.

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 relatively long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and dataset ID, then explains parameters and behavior. Could be slightly more concise, but no extraneous information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the two-part return (class count summary + recent violations). It also covers matching behavior, required parameters, and optional token. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. However, the description adds significant semantic value beyond schema: explains matching logic for street and house_number, clarifies the class summary, and notes that the optional token only affects rate limits. This greatly aids correct invocation.

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 returns HPD Housing Maintenance Code violations for one building, with a specific dataset reference. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on violations and mentioning the class count summary and recent violations. The verb 'get' is implied, and the resource is explicitly 'violations for one building'.

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 tells users to provide house number, street, and borough, and mentions an optional token. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like building_complaints or who_owns, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for violations only.

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