io_get_floor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing further – no note on what a missing/invalid floor returns, no mention of the compact/full response-shape behavior that materially changes the payload. With annotations present the bar is lower, yet this adds essentially zero behavioral context.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the tool, but there is no wasted text.

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 read-by-ID tool, the essentials are present: annotations carry the read-only safety signal and the schema fully documents both parameters. No output schema exists, but the description need not describe return values; only the lack of any routing/usage hint keeps it short of a 5.

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 schema already explains both 'id' and the 'view' enum (compact drops image/avatar URLs, full returns everything). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single iOffice floor by ID'), which is clear enough that an agent understands the operation. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling io_list_floors, relying on the caller to infer 'single' vs 'list' from the verb.

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 alternatives such as io_list_floors or io_get_building, nor any prerequisites for the ID. The caller must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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