List designs of a building

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the base safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: main_render_id is null until a render finishes, main_render_url is permanent, unsignable, and not recallable once shared, and per-render state deliberately belongs to get_job. This is valuable context without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences long and every sentence contributes: the first defines the result, the second explains field semantics and downstream usage, and the third routes user to get_job for per-render state. There is minimal fluff, though it is slightly dense and could be simplified without losing much.

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 tool with one simple required parameter and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: it explains the key fields, their semantics, and the relationship to sibling tools. The main missing piece is any explicit explanation of how the building_id relates to the returned designs, but given the simple single-parameter structure this is a minor gap.

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 has only one parameter, building_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description only indirectly refers to it via 'of a building' and relies on the parameter name and tool title for meaning. It does not explicitly document what building_id is, where it comes from, or any format constraints, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states that the tool returns all designs of a building with their renders, making the resource and output explicit. It further distinguishes itself by explaining that this is the source of render IDs used by order_estimate, order_album, and refine_design. This is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like list_jobs and get_job.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool when you need render IDs for order_estimate, order_album, or refine_design. It also provides when-not-to-use guidance and an alternative, stating that per-render state is not here and to poll get_job for that. This is exactly the kind of routing the dimension asks for.

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