municipality_housing_stats

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

The annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, so the description's lack of behavioral disclosure is partially mitigated. However, it adds no extra context beyond that – no mention of data freshness, aggregation details, or limitations. Since the description does not contradict the annotation, it is not a failure, but it also provides no additional transparency value.

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, compact sentence that delivers the core message immediately with no filler. It is perfectly sized for the amount of information it conveys, even though that information is incomplete elsewhere.

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 tool has an output schema (not provided) but the description fails to cover critical input usage: it doesn't explain the relationship between canton and municipality_bfs, how to obtain a BFS number, or what kind of output is expected (though the schema covers returns). Combined with zero parameter guidance and no sibling differentiation, an agent would likely struggle to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about either parameter. It does not explain that municipality_bfs is a BFS identifier, whether canton is optional, or how they interact. The agent must guess the meaning from the name, which is risky. This is a severe omission for a required integer parameter.

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 verb and resource: it provides a housing stock overview for a municipality, specifically listing buildings, dwellings, and room-size mix. This is specific enough to distinguish it from tools like lookup_dwellings (which focuses on individual dwellings) and new_construction (which covers future builds). However, it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling, so it lacks the direct differentiation seen in top-tier descriptions.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states scenarios nor mentions sibling tools. An agent cannot know whether to pick this over lookup_dwellings or buildings_in_bbox from the description alone, leaving the decision entirely to inference.

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