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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's content list adds some sense of breadth and cost of the call, but says nothing about failure modes (ambiguous street address), result volume, or whether missing data is omitted versus null.

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, front-loaded with the payload and followed by input forms. The long enumeration of report sections is dense but each item is meaningful scoping information. Minor waste in the phrase 'What a NYC building is like', which is less informative than the list that follows it.

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 return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully previews the report's coverage. For a single-parameter, read-only aggregator this is largely sufficient. What is absent is guidance on how an ambiguous or partial street address is resolved, the one realistic input pitfall.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already defines the accepted forms (id, openigloo link, street address). The description's 'Pass a building id, an openigloo.com link, or a NYC street address' largely restates that, adding no syntax, format, or ambiguity-resolution detail. Baseline 3 is 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 names the resource (a NYC building) and enumerates precisely what the report contains: tenant ratings, HPD violations, evictions, housing-court cases, bedbug reports, rent stabilization, ownership/management, and available rentals. That is far more specific than the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like landlord_report or get_apartment, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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: an agent can infer you call this when you want a full building dossier rather than a unit (get_apartment) or an owner (landlord_report). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named. The input guidance ('Pass a building id, an openigloo.com link, or a NYC street address') is parameter help, not usage routing.

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