Search the Port de Barcelona IFC library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what a hit contains (an IFC download URL plus a 3D viewer link) and the licensing terms. It omits pagination behavior and result-count semantics for the 'limit' parameter, which keeps it short of a 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the what/where and closing with the when-to-use rule. The parenthetical object-type list and format/license tags are dense but informative rather than filler; a truncation of the abbreviation list would be the only gain.

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 three-param, zero-required, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain scope, trigger condition, and the shape of returned hits. The only material gap is category discovery — the agent learns categories are 'listed in the answer' only after a first call.

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 67%: the 'query' parameter is well documented in-schema and 'category' is only hinted at ('the answer lists them'), while 'limit' has no description at all. The description restates the two search axes ('by words and category') but adds no enumeration of categories or syntax details, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search the Port de Barcelona BIM object library') and enumerates the domain contents (cranes, bollards, fenders, signs, buildings; IFC, CC BY 4.0). No sibling tool does library search, so an agent can route to it immediately.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use it when the user needs port or maritime infrastructure objects for a model or twin.' It does not enumerate alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g. versus validate_ifc or open_in_3d_viewer), but the sibling set is functionally distinct enough that this is clear context without exclusion.

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