Elements by property value

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: that all property sets are searched by default due to exporter inconsistency, and that the matched set and value are returned with each hit. It does not discuss result limits or ordering, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the example, followed by a short paragraph on the one non-obvious parameter decision. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and a rich schema, the description covers the trickiest decision (pset) and hints at the return payload. It stops short of describing the full result shape or caps, which matters because there is no output schema.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning: it justifies the `pset` default and shows a multi-parameter combination in the example. The `op` semantics are only illustrated via `exists`, not fully explained.

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 (find) and resource (elements matching a property condition), then anchors it with a concrete example (fire-rated doors on level 3). An agent can distinguish this from bim_elements_by_type or bim_elements_missing_property based on the property-condition framing.

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 worked example implicitly shows when this tool is appropriate, and it gives clear guidance to omit `pset` by default. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like bim_elements_by_type or bim_elements_missing_property, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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