Construction Pipeline

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it clarifies the forward-looking nature, enumerates possible status values, and spells out the exact return shape (projects array with fields). It also calls out a common misconception (there is no `market` parameter), which helps avoid misuse.

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 dense but well-organized: usage trigger, example, parameter summary, return format, and exclusions. Every section adds unique value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields verbatim. The structure makes it easy to scan and parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (7 optional params), the description covers all bases: when to use, how to filter, what to expect in the response, and what not to use it for. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values in prose, yet the description still provides a concise summary. No meaningful gaps remain.

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%, but the description goes well beyond the schema by adding format examples (ISO-2 for country, ISO-8601 for dates), clarifying the status enum in prose, and providing a realistic usage example with `status=construction`. It also flags the absence of a `market` parameter and directs users to an alternative, enriching the schema's bare field descriptions.

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 opens with a precise use case: "what is being built / announced / permitted" and explicitly frames it as "the forward-looking construction pipeline." It distinguishes itself from siblings by directly naming search_facilities and list_transactions as alternatives, ensuring no ambiguity about scope.

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 provides an explicit "Use when" scenario with a concrete example query. It also gives clear negative guidance: "Do NOT use for already-operational facilities (use search_facilities) or for the M&A deal flow (use list_transactions)." This tells the agent exactly when to pick this tool over alternatives.

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