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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds domain behavior beyond annotations: the building-OR-site exclusivity and the fact that a multi-page PDF yields multiple records sharing pdf_storage_path. Pagination behavior is left to 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the filtering rules. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or 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?

For a zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what a floorplan is, the two scoping modes, and the multi-page PDF record behavior. A reader still has to consult the schema for status/page/per_page, but nothing essential about correct invocation is missing.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds filter semantics the schema lacks: the exclusivity of building_id vs site_id and the meaning of a page-level vs site-level result. It does not elaborate on status, page, or per_page, keeping it just 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?

Specific verb+resource with a clarifying parenthetical distinguishing PDF page-level floors from site-level sheets. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_floorplan_regions or get_floorplan, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation, but an agent knows exactly what is returned.

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 the filtering decision: building_id for a building's floors, site_id for site-level plans such as campus maps. It also states the mutual-exclusivity constraint (belongs to exactly one of building OR site), which is real usage guidance. No explicit alternative-tool routing is provided.

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