eviction_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks explicit statements about read-only nature, rate limits, or auth requirements. While the function is implied non-destructive, these traits are not disclosed.

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 succinct, front-loads the key purpose and distinction, then explains parameters and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Covers the main purpose, required parameter combinations, matching behavior, and output fields. Missing pagination details and the meaning of 'Keyless' is unclear, but overall sufficient for a lookup tool with no output schema.

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% but the description adds valuable constraints: at least one of court_index_number or address/borough is required, and address matching is case-insensitive substring. It also lists the return fields, which is not in 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 clearly states the tool looks up marshal-executed evictions from a specific dataset, distinguishing it from filings or pending cases. It specifies the lookup methods and return fields, making it distinct from sibling tools which cover other property records.

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 explicitly warns against using this for filings, warrants, or pending cases, and states that at least one of court index number or address/borough is required. It provides clear context for when to use, though it doesn't compare directly with siblings.

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