slc_building

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

With no annotations, the description was expected to disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool is 'verified available' and describes a search, but does not mention authentication requirements (despite the API key parameter in the schema), data scope, or return behavior. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely short, consisting of a single phrase with an annotation-like note. While it is concise, it is under-specified and does not front-load critical information such as the tool's general purpose or usage context. It reads more like a placeholder than a well-structured description.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the need for an API key, the nature of the response, or any constraints. The schema documents parameters but the description does not provide the contextual glue needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes both parameters completely (key for API key, keyword for road/building name), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic value, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 says '武康路历史建筑检索' (Wukang Road historical building search), which indicates a search over historical buildings but incorrectly narrows the scope to Wukang Road, whereas the schema's keyword parameter implies a broader road/building keyword search. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on buildings, but the specificity is misleading.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus siblings like slc_era or slc_jiapu, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'verified available' note is a status indicator, not a usage guideline.

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