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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations: suite designators are normalized. It says nothing about what happens when the suite does not exist in the building or whether an ID is created on the fly.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the normalization behavior second. No padding; only the missing verb keeps it from being a model of tightness.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup, the annotations and fully documented schema carry most of the load, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what is returned (bare ID string versus an object) or how a non-matching suite is reported. Those are the gaps an agent would want closed before calling.

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 100% and the suite property already documents normalization with concrete examples ('Suite 400', 'STE 400', '#400', '3rd Floor'), so the description's normalization note largely duplicates the schema. It adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the properties provide, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 FactLot ID for a suite/unit inside a building) and scopes it by requiring the building URN, which separates it from id_parcel and id_document. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb ('returns'/'resolves'), so the action is only implied, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with id_parse or id_entity.

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 states the prerequisite input (the building's FactLot URN) but gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and names no alternative among the id_* siblings. An agent must infer that id_parse is the free-text alternative and id_entity/id_parcel cover other granularities.

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