list_construction_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses key behavior: optional filtering, the returned fields, and the exact accepted status values with translations. It does not mention potential size/pagination or behavior with invalid values, but the core behavior is clear for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, output fields, then status values. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important filtering details are front-loaded before the output enumeration.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the returned fields and filters. Minor gaps are that it does not describe pagination or explicitly state that no filters means a broad default query, but the schema's limit default and maximum mitigate this.

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 coverage is 67%: status and district are described in the schema, while limit is not but has default/min/max. The description adds value by explaining the exact Armenian status values and their English equivalents, and by emphasizing that filtering by district and status is optional. It does not repeat schema details, and limit needs no additional description beyond schema constraints.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'construction sites / permits', and states the optional filters and return fields. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from the sibling list_investment_projects by resource type, even without explicitly naming an alternative.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to list construction sites/permit records, optionally by district and status. It provides usage context with valid status values, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like list_investment_projects.

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