io_list_buildings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: search, pagination, and sorting are all restated capabilities that the schema documents in full (defaults, max, enum values), so it contributes almost nothing new about limits, result shape, or ordering behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted prose. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 6-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials and the schema fully specifies inputs, but it says nothing about what a building record contains or how pagination results should be consumed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 detailed notes on view, limit defaults, orderBy, startAt, and orderByType, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already documented; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (iOffice buildings), which is enough to separate it from the io_get_building and write-oriented siblings at a glance. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from other list tools like io_list_floors or io_list_spaces beyond the noun.

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_get_building (single record) or the child-listing tools, and no mention of prerequisites or scope. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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