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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: each floorplan belongs to exactly one of building OR site, and a multi-page PDF yields multiple floorplans sharing a pdf_storage_path (dedup guidance). It omits ordering and any pagination caveats, though the schema covers the latter.

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 tightly front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information (definition, filter routing, dedup behavior). No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers input semantics and the important return-structure caveat (multiple floorplans per PDF). What is missing is minor: ordering of results and how status/page filters interact, which would round out a list 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining the mutual exclusivity of building_id vs site_id scope, which the schema only hints at with 'building-scoped'/'site-scoped' phrasing. That added semantic clarity earns above baseline.

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 (floorplans), and immediately disambiguates what a floorplan is: 'PDF page-level floors or site-level sheets.' This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_buildings or list_sites without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the two filtering modes clearly (building_id for a building's floors, site_id for site-level plans like campus maps), giving solid usage context. It stops short of naming when to use this tool versus get_floorplan or list_floorplan_regions, so no explicit alternative routing is provided.

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