io_list_floors

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 no behavioral context beyond the annotations – no pagination behavior, default limits, or what the compact/full view does, all of which the schema alone carries. With the low bar set by annotations, it still contributes almost nothing 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or repetition. It is tight, though the sparseness is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined concision for a 7-parameter tool.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers only one optional filter and omits pagination defaults, the search/orderBy combination, and the compact-vs-full view tradeoff. Annotations are minimal, so the description should carry more of this burden than it does.

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%, so every parameter including view, limit, startAt, search and orderBy is already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the buildingId filter, adding no syntax or interaction detail, 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+resource ('List iOffice floors'), which is enough to distinguish it from the singular io_get_floor sibling by plurality alone. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with the get/create/update/delete floor siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Optionally filter by building ID' implies one usage mode, and the collection noun implies it's for enumerating floors rather than fetching one. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer io_get_floor, and no note about combining search/limit/orderBy filters.

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