get_cook_county_property_dossier

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. It discloses cost ($0.03 per call), data sources (public records), limitations (no owner personal data), and the derivation of permit-PIN links. Provides a clear picture of behavior and constraints.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with relevant information. Front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by specific data contents and practical notes. No extraneous words or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (sales, deeds, permits, tax assessments) and how it's joined. Also covers cost, derivation, and privacy scope. Complete for a dossier retrieval 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 has 100% coverage, with a detailed description for the single 'pin' parameter including format examples and a usage hint. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description clearly states tool returns a 'full property dossier' including parcel basics, sales, deed history, permits, and tax assessments. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the permit-to-PIN linking that is not possible with raw open data.

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?

Explicitly advises using search_chicago_property_by_address if only a street address is available. Also lists use cases (valuation, underwriting, title research, lead enrichment) and notes that no personal data is included. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but covers key guidance.

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