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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the filter hint and does not explain that all pages are fetched automatically, that detail lives 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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the filtering capabilities immediately after.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filtering adequately. The only notable omission is the automatic pagination behavior, which is documented in the schema but not surfaced in the description.

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 both filter parameters and the pagination parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The phrase 'project_id or building_id' adds no semantics beyond the schema and is arguably ambiguous about whether the filters are combined with OR or AND.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List building assignments for projects' tells the agent it is enumerating project-building associations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_project_sites or list_project_locations, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can identify it.

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 second sentence ('Filter by project_id or building_id') implies the two ways to scope the call, which is mild usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this tool versus a sibling, nor whether both filters may be combined or what happens when neither is supplied.

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