bfs_construction_activity

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it returns a per-year series with specific fields, is based on official consolidated data, and sets error/hint fields on failure.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a clarifying note about alternatives, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 rich annotations and output schema, the description is complete: it explains the temporal scope, the one-commune focus, the relationship to an overlapping source, and the expected result shape. Error handling is also disclosed.

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?

Although the schema includes detailed nested descriptions, the context signal reports 0% top-level schema description coverage. The description compensates with explicit Args bullets for municipality_bfs (including an example) and since_year (inclusive, default 2015), giving agents enough semantic grounding.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource statement: 'Yearly new buildings and new dwellings for a commune, with room-size mix.' It names the exact BFS data cubes and clarifies that this is the consolidated official yearly statistic, distinguishing it from related construction and pipeline tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'this is the *consolidated official yearly* statistic.' It also gives a clear when-not and alternative: 'For up-to-date building-register states and the construction pipeline (Baugesuche / Bauvorhaben), see the swiss-housing-mcp server.'

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