amccrs_search_buildings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses case-insensitive substring matching, exact-match behavior, filter combination, the meaning of risk classes, and that limit only caps response size while the search runs over the full registry. It stops short of describing empty-result behavior or authentication requirements, but for a read-oriented search tool this is strong disclosure.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and registry size, then organizes parameter details in a clear list. Every sentence provides useful operational detail; nothing feels redundant. Despite its length, it is information-dense and scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description clearly states the return shape: '{"total_matches": N, "buildings": [...]}' and enumerates the per-building fields. For a 4-parameter optional-filter search tool, the description gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does comprehensively. Each parameter—street, sector, risk_class, and limit—is explained with matching semantics, examples, and value ranges. The risk_class explanation is especially detailed and adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 and resource: 'Search Bucharest's official seismic-risk building registry (AMCCRS)'. It also gives the registry size and clearly distinguishes this tool from unrelated siblings by focusing on a unique domain. The scope is unmistakable even without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly explains how to use the tool: all filters are optional, combine with AND, and leaving everything empty starts browsing from the beginning. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are in different domains, so no exclusion is needed. The guidance is practical and unambiguous.

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