get_building_breakdown

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral details: cost of 4 tokens, returns nothing for transactions with no buildings, and explains the output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence defines purpose and output, the second explains relation to siblings, and the final two provide cost and edge case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter source, cost, and edge case behavior. It is fully self-contained and actionable for an agent.

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% for the single parameter, and the description adds context beyond the schema regex by stating that transaction_id is 'the id shown on a search result that has building data'. This clarifies the parameter's source and usage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'building-by-building breakdown for one transaction', and lists the specific fields returned (footprint area, storeys, total floor area). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by explaining that they return per-transaction sums while this tool provides individual building detail.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after a search when a result has building data and you need the detail'), provides an example ('developed-land deed'), and indirectly tells when not to use it (if the inline sum suffices). It also specifies that the transaction_id comes from search results.

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