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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds two things annotations cannot: the required write scope and the cross-field validation rule that a lone latitude or longitude is rejected. That is genuine behavioral disclosure about failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the scope, then the validation constraint. No filler. It loses a point only because the latitude/longitude rule restates what the schema already says.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, authorization requirement, and the one non-obvious cross-field constraint. Little more is needed, though a note on what the tool returns (e.g., the new building ID) would complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented, including the latitude/longitude pairing rule that the description repeats. The description adds no coordinate-system or unit detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Create a new building.' An agent immediately knows the operation. However, with siblings like create_building_type and create_project_building in the list, no differentiation is offered to confirm this creates the building entity itself, nor that it requires an existing site.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires buildings:write scope') which is useful context for authorization, but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to create_project_building, bulk_create, or create_site. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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