Get attribute property values

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it fully specifies the return table shape, per-cell structure ({value, display?, isDefault?}), the exact meaning of display and isDefault, and every status code (NotAvailable/NotEvaluated/Undefined/Empty) with its condition. For a read-only tool with no output schema, this is unusually rich behavioral 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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded and every clause carries information. The single dense paragraph with stacked parentheticals is harder to scan than a structured layout, but there is essentially no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly (table shape, cell variants, status codes, default scope). Together with the 75%-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds the cross-parameter rule that scope is only meaningful without properties and defaults to UserDefined. That interaction is not derivable from the individual schema fields alone.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Reads property values of ATTRIBUTES — mainly building materials") and explicitly contrasts itself with get_property_values by scoping to attributes rather than elements. An agent can distinguish this from sibling value tools (get_property_values, get_component_property_values, get_attribute_property_values) without opening a 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?

Usage is implied through the "mainly building materials... thermal or product data" framing and the note that without properties all available ones are returned (scope defaults UserDefined), which tells the agent when to pass a scope vs. omit it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. "use get_property_values for elements"), so the routing is left to inference.

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