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 covered. The description adds substantial domain behavior beyond annotations: the base-target model, how criticality modifies building-level targets, the scale constraint on derived targets, and metric ranges and directionality. That is unusually rich behavioral context for interpreting the returned data.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining detail is mostly domain context needed because there is no output schema. It is somewhat lengthy and would be easier to scan with bullets for the metric list, but no sentence is clearly irrelevant.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly explains what the targets represent, how building-level targets are derived, and what the metric values mean. It covers the important filterable dimensions and value semantics, though it does not describe the exact response shape or field names.

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 the parameters are already documented at a baseline level. The description goes further for the metric filter by naming and defining all four enum values with their scales and whether lower or higher is better, which the schema's enum alone does not provide. It adds little for page, per_page, or system_id beyond what the schema already says.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: listing technical Level of Service targets for building systems, with one base target per system and metric. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings such as list_infrastructure_los_targets or list_los_proposed_targets, so an agent gets a clear purpose but must infer the boundary from the name.

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 says results can be filtered by system, metric, or active status, which implies the retrieval use case, but it never states when to choose this tool over sibling list tools such as list_los_proposed_targets or list_los_targets_history. Usage is therefore implied rather than guided.

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