ms_global_buildings

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does convey that this is a static manifest of download links scoped by quadkey region rather than a parameterized query — useful for setting expectations. It says nothing about response size, throttling, auth, or whether the polygons themselves are returned versus merely referenced.

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 that identifies the dataset and its contents with no padding. It is perhaps over-compressed for a tool that an agent will use rarely, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and the zero-parameter schema is trivial. Still, for a static-data tool buried among many geospatial siblings, the description should say what an agent does with the links — e.g., that footprint polygons are fetched separately — which it leaves implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'per quadkey region' correctly signals that regional scoping happens through the returned links, not through input arguments.

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 a specific resource — the Microsoft Global Buildings manifest — and states its payload: 1.3 billion footprint polygons plus download links broken out by quadkey region. That is enough to tell it apart from query-style siblings like area_baseline or aoi_imagery. It stops short of a verb, so an agent must infer that invocation returns the manifest rather than performing a lookup.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as worldpop or osm_military_objects for built-environment questions. Against ~90 siblings the agent is left to infer that this is a static catalog rather than a filtered query endpoint.

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