list_investment_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses the access limitation: only names and 3D footprints are exposed anonymously, while richer data live in a separate restricted layer. The 'where available' qualifier for Monte subdivision also sets accurate expectations about conditional data.

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?

Both sentences are purposeful: the first states the tool's core action and scope, the second provides an important limitation. The description is compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description adequately covers the return scope: project names, Monte's lot subdivision, and what is intentionally not included. Since no output schema exists, a slightly more explicit statement of the response shape would improve completeness, but the description handles the main use case well.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively defines the input surface. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is strong. No additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List the municipality's investment / redevelopment projects by name.' It adds concrete examples and an additional capability (Monte lot subdivision), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling tools such as list_construction_projects.

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 when to use the tool by clarifying it only exposes project names and 3D footprints, and that status, owner, and priority-for-sale data are unavailable. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when the agent should choose a sibling tool instead, so usage guidance remains partially implicit.

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