io_get_building

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say what happens when the ID does not exist, whether the call is page-scoped, or anything about the open-world nature of the lookup. With annotations carrying the load, a 2 reflects minimal added value.

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 the verb first and zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance dimensions rather than being a conciseness failure.

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 read tool with full schema coverage, rich enum documentation, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient. There is no output schema, and the description does not sketch the returned object, but the schema's 'view' parameter partially compensates, keeping this at the minimum-viable level.

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% and the 'view' enum is documented in depth in the schema itself (compact vs full, field-dropping rationale). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single iOffice building') scoped by ID, so the operation is immediately clear. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as io_list_buildings (the plural-list counterpart) or io_get_floor/io_get_space, leaving routing to the reader's inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus io_list_buildings (to enumerate) or io_get_floor/io_get_space (other resources). No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage purely from the name and the word 'single'.

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