list_new_buildings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at an EISZHS client key and an 'honest refusal' outcome, but does not explain when a refusal is returned, whether the operation is read-only, how pagination errors behave, or where the data comes from. 'Описание методов закрыто' further withholds behavior.

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 text is short but under-specified: the first sentence is vague and the second sentence ('Описание методов закрыто') is meta-commentary that does not help an agent. It is not well front-loaded beyond the generic 'catalog of objects' label.

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?

Despite the helpful input schema and an output schema being present, the description leaves core context missing: how the EISZHS key is provided, when an honest refusal occurs, how this tool relates to sibling tools, and what the catalog actually contains. The explicit statement that method descriptions are closed makes the definition incomplete for selection and invocation.

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 each of the six filter parameters already carries a meaningful schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics and even introduces a client EISZHS key concept that is absent from the schema, so the baseline 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 'Каталог объектов' ('catalog of objects'), which is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name rather than an explicit operation like 'list new buildings'. The addition 'ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ' is cryptic and does not clarify the resource or its exact scope, and no distinction is made from sibling tools.

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 guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of check_developer, get_project_declaration, check_escrow, or others. The phrase 'Описание методов закрыто' actively disclaims instructions rather than providing prerequisites or alternatives.

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