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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no return shape, no note that pagination is auto-handled, no ordering or result-size behavior — all of which live only in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence mostly echoes the site_id parameter already present in the schema.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any mention of auto-pagination behavior or result ordering, which are relevant to calling it correctly, though no output schema exists to cover returns.

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 every parameter (page, search, site_id, per_page) is already documented. The description only restates the site_id filter, adding no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (list) and resource (buildings), which is unambiguous on its own. However it does not differentiate from near-siblings such as list_project_buildings, list_building_types, or list_sites, which an agent choosing between list tools would benefit from.

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 implies the primary usage pattern (optionally narrow results by site) but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing guidance for the many sibling list_* tools.

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