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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what happens when the ID doesn't exist, whether it errors or returns null, or what the record contains. For a retrieval tool the not-found behavior is the main thing an agent needs and it is absent.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately efficient for a one-parameter lookup tool. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it loses nothing on structure.

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?

This is a simple read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, so the burden is light, but the description still omits not-found behavior and any hint about the returned record. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for handling outcomes.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the numeric-string format rationale, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'by ID' merely restates what the schema already says and adds no format or sourcing guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (building) with a singular scope ('one ... by ID'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling propertyware_list_buildings. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, but the single-record intent is unambiguous.

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 this is for fetching a known building ID rather than enumerating, but the description never states when to prefer it over propertyware_list_buildings or what to do if the ID is unknown. 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.