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

Annotations already indicate it is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), but the description adds behavioral context: the one-open-per-citizen limit and the consequence that built buildings change city rules. It does not cover auth details beyond citizenship or response behavior, but the added constraints are valuable.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and key constraints, the second adds a crucial consequence. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, limits, and a downstream effect. It does not explain the full proposal lifecycle, but that likely belongs to other tools (e.g., vote). It is nearly complete for its scope.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (why, kind, api_key). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('propose') and resource ('public building from the catalog'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like build_home (home vs public building) and propose_law (law vs building). The scope 'citizens only' further clarifies the action's 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?

It provides clear prerequisites ('citizens only') and a limiting condition ('one open each'), which tells the agent when it can and cannot be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when to choose them, so it falls short of a full 5.

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