Get IFC data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the per-element error envelope ({guid, error}) and the fact that the tool can act as a GlobalId finder, returning a lookup array. It does not discuss performance or pagination limits, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the payload contents, then the finder capability, then the return envelope. Dense but every clause carries information; the return-shape sentence is arguably long given no output schema, but it earns its place. Minor verbosity in enumerating property/attribute variants.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by spelling out both the data fields and the response envelope ({elements, lookup}), including the per-element error case. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call it 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 80% (baseline 3), and the description adds meaning on top: the returned categories map directly to the include enum, ifcGlobalIds is described as a find-and-include mode, and property set filtering is hinted at through the property-set grouping. It does not spell out storedOnly semantics beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource (get IFC data of elements) and enumerates exactly which data is returned — identity GUIDs, ifcType, IFC properties grouped by property set, attributes, classification references. It also flags the dual mode (retrieve by element vs find by ifcGlobalId), which separates it from siblings like get_element_details or set_ifc_properties.

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?

The description implies the retrieval context and mentions a second lookup mode via ifcGlobalIds, but never states when to prefer this over get_element_details, get_component_property_values, or set_ifc_properties, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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