makani_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the auth requirement ('no key') and enumerates the returned fields, which is useful context, but nothing about rate limits, error behavior on invalid numbers, or lookup latency.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and the input constraint front-loaded. The return-value sentence is arguably redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and readable.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it accepts, that no key is required, and the resolution target. The only gap is sibling differentiation against the other makani_ 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 100%, and the schema already documents the 10-digit format with and without a space plus examples. The description only restates '10-digit Makani number', adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('the building behind a 10-digit Makani number') with a clear input format, so an agent knows exactly what the tool resolves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling makani_reverse_geocode or makani_validate, leaving the boundary between the three Makani tools ambiguous.

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 'no key' note usefully signals that this lookup requires no authentication, which is real usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer this over makani_reverse_geocode (coords to address) or makani_validate, so an agent must infer the routing.

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