io_get_floor

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 without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown ID, or what the fetch returns, so it neither enriches nor contradicts the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral context noted above rather than through deliberate omission.

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 single-record read with full schema coverage, a safety annotation and no output schema, the bare one-liner is minimally sufficient. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, but there is no added context either.

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 an unusually thorough explanation of the view enum in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax 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 floor) and scope (single, by ID), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling io_list_floors. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, but the singular/plural distinction makes the intent unambiguous.

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_floors or the sibling io_get_building, and no prerequisites or error conditions mentioned. The reader must infer that this is the retrieval path when a floor ID is already known.

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