get_buildings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does signal a read operation and identify the lookup keys. However, it does not state whether BFE and address-id are mutually exclusive, what building/unit data is returned, whether pagination exists, or whether any permissions are needed.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the verb and resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately terse for a simple lookup, although its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and parameter guidance.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with only two unconstrained strings, the description is a minimal but usable selection aid. It is not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation because the required/alternative parameter behavior and return expectations are left unspecified.

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?

The schema provides only bare string names with no descriptions, so the description's mention of 'BFE or address-id' is the only semantic signal. It suggests either identifier can select the data, but it does not explain the format of either parameter or what happens when both or neither are supplied.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get BBR buildings and units', and adds the key scoping identifiers BFE/address-id. It is clear about the core action, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from property-related siblings such as get_parcel or resolve_property.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_parcel or resolve_property, and no explicit instruction on choosing between BFE and address-id. The word 'or' implies alternatives, but no usage conditions or exclusions are stated.

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