buildings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It signals a read-only aggregation and reveals the main result categories, but it does not explain scope (e.g., which country's buildings), ordering, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied rather than explicit.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and contains no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though slightly terse, matching its role as a short summary.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. An agent is left without an understanding of how to use the two optional parameters or when this tool should be selected over related tools.

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 0% and the description never mentions top_n or country. Although the property names give some hint, 'top_n' is ambiguous without knowing what it ranks, and the 'player' default for country is unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema information.

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 identifies the resource ('buildings') and the operation ('summary'/汇总), and lists the output facets: level, profit, and loss-making buildings by type. It is clear enough about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as overview or economy.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. An agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the phrase 'building summary' without routing to or away from any specific sibling.

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