Open IFC models in the 3D viewer

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds behavior the agent could not otherwise know: the result is a URL plus an embeddable <iframe>, the tool does not launch a viewer itself, and the models must be public http(s) URLs because the browser does the download. It also lists what the viewer does after load (orbit, section, measure, validation), which frames the side effects that occur downstream.

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 core action and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage routing at the end. The parenthetical feature inventory ('orbit, section, measure, properties, validation with Health Score badge') and 'free IFC Viewer Online' branding are the least load-bearing parts and could be trimmed without losing information.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies what is missing elsewhere: what is returned (a link and an iframe), that the tool is a link-builder rather than a launcher, and the public-URL constraint on inputs. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or explain the result to a user is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description maps several parameters to user-visible outcomes in plain language: 'drop them on the city map' (map), 'isolate a class' (isolate), 'pick a camera view' (view), 'add point clouds' (scans), and the drawings pane. It also reinforces the federated-scene behavior of the models array. Only the ui presets and validate are left entirely to the 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Build a link that opens one or more public IFC files in the ... 3D viewer.' It is far more precise than a tautology, and it also states the output shape (a link plus an <iframe>). It never names a sibling tool, though, so the boundary with open_3d_sketch or open_drawings has to be inferred from the 'see, show, share or embed in 3D' framing.

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?

'Use it whenever the user wants to see, show, share or embed a model in 3D' gives a clear triggering condition, and the closing note that the link must be handed to the user (no window opens) sets an important usage expectation. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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