factory_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the clustering behavior and 'largest first' ordering, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, the effect of limit/offset, or what a caller gets back. It adds context without contradicting the 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?

It is short and the core behavior is front-loaded, but the second sentence mixes selector syntax and a sibling comparison in a way that's hard to parse without prior domain knowledge. Nothing is padded, though some wording (e.g., 'Built production buildings') is awkward rather than economical.

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?

With five parameters at 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden and doesn't meet it: save, world, limit, and offset go unexplained, and return shape beyond ordering is unstated. The selector guidance is helpful but disconnected from the actual input schema.

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 only 20% – just as_of is documented. The description explains select= and factory= selector syntax, but neither appears among the five actual parameters (save, as_of, limit, world, offset), so the only parameter detail offered doesn't map to the schema. The remaining four parameters receive no meaning from either source.

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 the result shape (production buildings clustered by distance into sites, largest first) and names a sibling, propose_factories, that differs. However, it never uses an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'find', so the action itself is only implied. An agent can infer this is a retrieval tool but not with full confidence from the description alone.

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?

It notes that propose_factories groups by more than distance, which implicitly guides selection, and explains where a near: selector goes. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool or what prerequisites exist, leaving the comparison to inference.

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