construction_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's additional information about status breakdowns and the interpretation of 'under construction' as an early indicator adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like data availability by municipality or time-range constraints.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second details the status categories, and the third explains the practical implication. Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the data meaning and use case. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not specify what the output contains or how to interpret the status codes fully (though codes are listed). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (canton, municipality_bfs). The description does not mention these parameters or provide any guidance on their values, formats, or roles. With no schema descriptions and no parameter information in the description, the agent receives no help beyond the schema structure.

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 clearly specifies the tool retrieves buildings and dwellings in the planning/construction pipeline of a municipality, with explicit breakdowns by status codes. This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like lookup_dwellings (likely existing dwelling data) and new_construction (new building registrations). The context of early indicator for school-space planning further differentiates its use case.

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 usage for getting pipeline data for a municipality and hints at its value for school-space planning, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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