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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It discloses that this is a self-assessment, returns several specific outputs, and explicitly warns that it is not a formal DGNB audit. This meaningfully clarifies the tool's limits and what an agent should not expect, though it does not detail data handling or side effects, which are relatively minor for an assessment 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function, lists the key outputs, and ends with an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, the main outputs, and an important boundary condition. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has enough to understand how to call the tool and what to expect in return. It is not fully complete because it omits explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over closely related BIM or readiness assessments, but this is a moderate gap given the output list and schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful framing by mentioning the 20-question checklist, which relates to the answers object, but it does not add substantive meaning to the individual answer values or cert_target beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action: it provides a DGNB certification pre-score and BIM maturity self-assessment based on a 20-question checklist. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_uae_bim_compliance by referencing DGNB and ISO 19650, and it explicitly sets expectations with 'Not a formal DGNB audit.'

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 gives useful context about the tool being a self-assessment and pre-score rather than a formal audit, which implies early-stage or indicative use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as building_readiness or check_uae_bim_compliance, nor does it provide applied guidance on selecting between them.

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