search_chicago_property_by_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses paid nature ($0.01 via x402), data source, and return format with scores. Does not mention side effects but appears read-only. Could be more explicit about being read-only, but adequate.

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?

Concise paragraph with clear structure: purpose, workflow, return details, source, and cost. Every sentence adds value, 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 essential aspects: purpose, usage order, return fields, cost. Lacks mention of error handling or behavior when no match found, but for a simple search tool it is nearly complete. Output schema not provided so description's list of return fields is helpful.

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 description covers the single parameter 'address' with format and examples. The description adds workflow context but no new semantic details about the parameter itself. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline of 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 tool resolves a street address to parcel PIN(s), using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the 'no-PIN entry point' and referencing tools that require a PIN.

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 states when to use (when you have an address but not a PIN) and directs to call this FIRST before using siblings. Names alternative tools that take the PIN as input.

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