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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent operation, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by listing the exact contents of the report and noting that 'the returned url has the complete timeline, all reviews, and rent history', which is behavioral info about the output.

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 a single, dense sentence front-loaded with the report contents, followed by a concise prerequisite note. It avoids extraneous words, though the enumerated list is somewhat long; still, every element contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (report with many fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, inputs, and output behavior, including the pointer to the full URL. It doesn't address error cases or rate limits, but those are not implied as critical for this read-only tool, so it is adequately complete.

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% for both parameters (city and slug), so baseline is 3. The description adds that slug comes from 'search_buildings results' and gives an example format, but it doesn't elaborate on the city parameter beyond the schema. This is a marginal enhancement that warrants a 3.

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 produces a 'full report card for one building' enumerating specific data points (LucidIQ score, violation counts, rent summary). It uniquely identifies this as the comprehensive building report, distinguishing it from siblings like get_landlord_record or get_review_summary which focus on narrower aspects.

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 explicitly directs the agent to 'call search_buildings first if you only have an address,' establishing a clear prerequisite and linking to a sibling. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, this guidance is sufficient context for proper invocation.

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