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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful data-coverage context (which record sections are returned), but says nothing about failure behavior for malformed ids, missing buildings, or latency — relevant for a tool that accepts three id formats.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the accepted id formats. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, id formats, and record contents well. The only gap is error/empty handling for unknown or malformed ids, which an agent would benefit from knowing 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by specifying concrete id syntax (ten-digit NYC BBL, jc:14106:39 form, Umarelli URL) that the schema only gestures at generically. It still doesn't say how invalid ids are handled.

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 and resource ('Get one building's record from Umarelli') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (permits, assessed value, tax bill, tax breaks, zoning, news). Singular 'one building' implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'search', but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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: the description clarifies that ids come as a BBL, a jc: id, or a URL, which hints at the search-then-fetch workflow, but it never says when to use this instead of 'search' or 'recent_permits'. No prerequisites, error conditions, or exclusions are stated.

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