who_owns

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it joins specific datasets, returns contact names and addresses, reflects HPD filings (which may lag reality), and notes it requires no API key. No contradictions exist.

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, with three sentences that front-load the purpose and provide essential details without fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, data join, input/output, and limitations.

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?

For a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs, outputs, data source, and limitations. It covers all necessary context for an AI agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

The input schema fully covers all three required parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by framing them as user instructions ('Give the house number...') and mentions matching behavior indirectly (substring matching for street is detailed 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 states exactly what the tool does: it identifies who is on file with HPD, acts as the 'who do I actually serve' tool, and explains the data join process. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like building_violations by focusing on ownership contacts.

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 lists required inputs (house number, street, borough) and mentions the output (registrations and contacts). It provides a caveat about data lag, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like landlord_portfolio.

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