building_readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It details the return payload (score, complexity, domain scores, RAG, recommendations), which is helpful, but it does not mention permissions, data sources, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of input-side behavior guidance leaves a transparency gap.

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 sentence that efficiently packs purpose and output details without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core intent and then lists the output pieces, making it easy to parse.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is under-specified. It gives a high-level output summary but omits input parameter semantics, interpretation of the RAG ratings, and how the score is derived. The agent would need to infer or probe to use the tool 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 does not compensate. It never mentions the eight parameters (current_use, proposed_use, year_built, etc.), their meaning, or how they influence the readiness assessment. The enums alone do not explain the business logic, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.

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 states it performs a 'Building Readiness assessment for change-of-use / conversion' and enumerates the specific outputs (0-100 readiness score, complexity, four domain scores, recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dgnb_bim_readiness, which likely focus on broader readiness or specific standards.

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?

It implies the tool is intended for change-of-use or conversion projects but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No alternative tools are referenced, so the guidance is only implicit.

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