landlord_litigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It details return fields (case type, open date, status, etc.), matching behavior (case-insensitive substrings for respondent and street), and notes the tool is 'keyless'. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient.

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 (about 5 sentences), front-loaded with the dataset ID and purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values and includes a summary by status. It covers the key usage scenarios and matching behavior, making it complete for this lookup tool.

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% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by explaining required parameter combinations (building vs respondent), substring matching details, and borough shorthand (MN/BX/BK/QN/SI).

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: looking up HPD housing litigations by building or respondent. It specifies the data source (dataset 59kj-x8nc) and distinguishes from sibling tools like building_violations which handle different types of 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 explains how to use the tool: look up by building (house_number + street + borough) or by respondent name, with at least one required. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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