io_get_building

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not mention the significant 'view' response-shape behavior, nor what happens on a missing/invalid ID. As a bare getter this is tolerable, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity edges toward under-specification given the tool has a meaningful response-shaping parameter.

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 two-parameter getter with 100% schema coverage, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any mention of the compact/full view behavior or failure modes, which are the only real complexities in this tool.

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%, including a detailed explanation of the compact/full 'view' enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb (Get), resource (iOffice building), and scope (single, by ID), which contrasts implicitly with the sibling io_list_buildings. It stops short of explicitly naming the list/create/update/delete siblings or the floor/space getters it could be confused with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus io_list_buildings or the other io_get_* tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or error conditions. Usage has to be inferred from the tool name alone.

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