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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide – no mention of what happens if the ID doesn't exist, error behavior, or field shape. Sits at 2 because it mirrors structured data without adding.

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?

One short sentence with no waste and the essential retrieval-by-ID semantics front-loaded. There is no filler 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?

For a single-read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, the description is functional but sparse. It omits whether the record may not be found and the relationship to list_project_buildings, leaving minor gaps given the simple shape.

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% – the only parameter 'id' is fully documented in schema as 'Project building ID' with a uuid format. The description only restates that it takes an ID. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds nothing beyond it.

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 (Get) and resource (single project building assignment) and specifies retrieval by ID. It doesn't differentiate from the sibling list_project_buildings, but the singular 'single' already implies the retrieve-one pattern vs. the list sibling.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the usage condition (you need a record by its identifier), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_project_buildings or any other alternative. A reasonable agent can infer usage, but nothing is spelled out.

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