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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: there is no market parameter, statuses are enumerated, and the exact return shape is provided. It also clarifies scope by excluding operational facilities, adding meaningful behavioral guidance without contradicting the annotations.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: use case, example, parameter summary, return shape, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the most important usage signal and contains no filler.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers when to use it, how to construct queries, what parameters mean, what the response looks like, and which sibling tools to use instead in edge cases.

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 adds value by giving concrete formats and examples for each parameter (ISO-2 country codes, hyperscale capacity threshold, ISO date for expected completion) and by explicitly noting the absence of a market parameter and how to work around it.

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 clearly states the tool returns the forward-looking construction pipeline ('what is being built / announced / permitted') and gives a concrete example. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like search_facilities and list_transactions, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 says when to use it ('Use when a user asks...'), provides a worked example, and gives direct exclusions with alternatives: do NOT use for operational facilities (use search_facilities) or M&A deal flow (use list_transactions). It also notes there is no market parameter and directs to search_facilities for named markets.

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