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 real behavioral context beyond that: how each building's target is derived from the base via the criticality modifier, that derived targets never leave the metric's scale, and the unit caution 'None of these values are money.' It does not discuss pagination behavior, which the schema covers instead.

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 and filter sentence are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is a dense block of domain arithmetic (the 70-to-82 example) that is only tangentially needed to invoke a list tool. The content earns credit for being information-rich, yet it is longer and heavier than a listing tool's selection decision requires.

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 compensates by explaining what the returned targets are, their metrics, units and scales, and how derived values are computed per building. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool, with only minor gaps around result shape and filtering combinations.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving each metric's scale and direction (fci 0-100 percent lower-is-better; risk_score_avg 0-25 lower-is-better; asset_condition_avg higher-is-better read with fixed condition bands), which adds interpretive meaning absent from the bare enum. It also names three filterable fields, though it omits page/per_page.

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+resource: listing technical Level of Service targets for building systems, and specifies what entities are returned (one base target per system and metric, org-wide). It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_infrastructure_los_targets or list_los_proposed_targets, but the 'for building systems' scope is clear enough for an agent to recognize the domain.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Filter by system, metric or active' tells the agent how to narrow results but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives like get_system_los_target or list_los_proposed_targets. An agent can infer this is a read-only enumeration tool, but nothing prevents picking the wrong sibling.

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