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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the data is 'Public,' implying read-only access, but it lacks any detail regarding rate limiting, API constraints, or expected error handling behavior. This is a minimal disclosure for a critical data retrieval tool.

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 highly efficient, single-sentence summary. It uses strong nouns (profile, recipe, states) to quickly communicate the comprehensive nature of the data retrieval.

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?

While it describes the rich output data, the lack of explicit behavioral constraints or limits makes it not fully complete. An agent might still require clarification on what is returned for each component (e.g., how 'machine-readable parts' are structured).

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is adequate. The description does not add significant semantic value over the schema, though it clarifies that the 'ref' parameter identifies the building whose details are being requested.

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 exceptionally clear, defining the tool's function as retrieving 'Public detail of one building.' It specifically enumerates the content returned: the owner’s profile, rooms and their states, machine-readable parts, and the building recipe.

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 offers no comparative guidance. While the sibling list implies its role as a detail fetcher, the description itself does not instruct the agent on when to use this specific tool versus alternatives like 'get_profile' or 'list_rooms'.

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