get_support_facilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: the data is frozen as of 2025.08.20 and may be stale, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe other side effects, though for a simple list this is largely implicit.

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 short sentences with no fluff: states the resource, lists example categories and output fields, and adds a crucial data-freshness caveat. The most important info is front-loaded.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema (which is not shown but exists per context), the description sufficiently covers the essential usage context: what the tool returns, its scope, and a staleness warning. There is nothing missing that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers them all. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none are needed; it focuses on output fields and data context, which is appropriate for a no-arg tool. Baseline 4 applies.

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 states a clear action (list) on a specific resource (auxiliary facilities in the headquarters building) and enumerates example facility types (café, daycare, meeting rooms, sports center, convenience store) and the data fields returned (name, creation time, modification time, remarks). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_office_meeting_rooms and get_cafeteria_menu_stats, which target narrower facilities.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving a general snapshot of all 29 support facilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if only meeting rooms are needed, a specific tool might be more appropriate). Context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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