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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by framing results as facts the planner *computes* (derived rather than stored) and by advertising a warnings section, but it says nothing about result size, computation cost, or what happens when a referenced floor has no data.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; every listed item corresponds to real returned data. It is slightly back-loaded, since the vague framing "Facts that the planner computes" precedes the informative enumeration, but nothing is expendable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so well by enumerating rooms, doors, windows, routes, and warnings. Gaps are minor: the shape of the response, whether warnings are always present, and how large a full-plan response can be are left unspecified.

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 50%: project_id is documented (including the notable "never show it to the person" constraint) while `floor` has no schema description. The phrase "for a floor or every floor" partially compensates by implying the omit-vs-specify semantics, but the description never states the indexing base (the schema's minimum of 0 suggests zero-based) or what an out-of-range floor yields.

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 is a noun-phrase inventory rather than a verb, but it names the concrete resource precisely: site location, time zone, north, room areas, door connectivity, window directions, entrance routes, and warnings. That enumeration makes it distinguishable from siblings like query_project or list_projects, even though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"for the site and for a floor or every floor" implicitly tells the agent that omitting `floor` yields full-plan facts while supplying it narrows to one floor. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over query_project or list_projects, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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