list_new_buildings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes a read-only search/catalog operation, which is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or potential limitations. The mention of 'Тариф Pro' hints at access restrictions, but details are lacking.

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 concise, consisting of two informative sentences plus a tariff note. It front-loads the core purpose and filters, and adds the 'entry point' context efficiently. The structure could be slightly improved by separating the tariff info, but overall it is well-sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It covers the filtering capability and entry-point role, but omits details about pagination (limit) and output format (comparison feature). The tool has 6 parameters and no required fields, so additional context on response structure would be helpful.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing explanations for all 6 parameters. The description lists the same filters (region, developer, срок ввода, стадия, эскроу) without adding significant new information beyond the schema. Thus, it adds minimal value per the baseline rule.

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 the tool's purpose: searching/cataloging buildings under construction with filters (region, developer, commissioning year, stage, escrow). It also distinguishes it as the entry point for 'what is being built' and mentions comparison. Sibling tools (e.g., check_construction_permit) have different focuses, so this tool's role is well-defined.

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 implies this is the primary tool for listing new buildings ('Точка входа «что строится»' – entry point for 'what is being built'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling names suggest different use cases, but no direct guidance is given.

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