get_cook_county_parcel

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 the cost ($0.01 per call via x402), data source (Cook County Assessor), and refresh frequency (nightly). It lists the fields returned (address, city, ZIP, etc.) without needing an output schema. It could mention that it is a read-only operation, but the description implies it and provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, returned fields, cost, source, and alternative tool guidance.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use alternatives, cost, and data provenance. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

The input schema coverage is 100% and already describes the PIN parameter in detail, including formats (14-digit, dashed, 10-digit) and a hint to use search_chicago_property_by_address for address-based lookups. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Look up' and the resource 'single Cook County / Chicago parcel by PIN'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_cook_county_property_dossier as the alternative when more data is needed, and implies that search_chicago_property_by_address is for address-based lookups.

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 says to use this tool for a cheap single-property lookup and directs users to use get_cook_county_property_dossier if they need sales, permits, and assessment history. It also advises using search_chicago_property_by_address first if only a street address is available, providing clear context and exclusions.

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