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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the recency window for new items (last 7 days) and notes that hours/address/description are only returned 'where known', which sets expectations about sparse fields.

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 domain scope is front-loaded in the first clause and the downstream-usage instruction is a short, separate second sentence. The first sentence is dense with a colon-delimited field list, but every element earns its place and there is 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it does describe them anyway. Combined with the scope, the field expectations and the key-reuse instruction, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the silent language parameter is left unaddressed in prose.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including its enum values and default, so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions the language parameter or its effect on returned labels, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (buildings) with a tightly scoped domain: Dongdaemun/Seoul wholesale fashion buildings covered by apMZoomAI. It also enumerates what each record contains (stalls in business, new items in last 7 days, hours, address, description), which clearly separates it from the stall- and product-oriented siblings.

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 tells the agent to use the returned building key as the building filter of the other tools, which establishes this as the entry-point tool in the workflow. It lacks any when-not guidance or a named alternative for cases where a building key is already known, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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