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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds crucial behavioral context by defining *what* the output contains (slug, scale, BIM completeness %) and *what* the data originates from (curated vs. user-created).

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 dense but highly efficient. It front-loads the core purpose, clearly states the output fields, and immediately follows with the critical scope constraints (default exclusion/inclusion), maximizing information per sentence.

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 that the tool lists properties with specific attributes (scale, BIM completeness), the description is highly complete. It tells the agent exactly what kind of data set it is operating on, which is essential for decision-making.

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?

Although parameter coverage is 100%, the description adds vital semantic meaning by linking the `include_user` boolean not just to a technical toggle, but to the difference between 'curated' properties and 'user-created' properties.

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 its purpose: to list curated public properties (famous buildings/landmarks). It immediately defines the resource and its scope, distinguishing it from potentially broader or user-focused listing tools.

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 explicit instructions on default behavior (excluding user-created properties) and the exact mechanism (`include_user=true`) needed to override that default and include user-generated content.

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