dgnb_bim_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it performs a self-assessment and returns specific outputs (pre-score, certification level, BIM level, domain breakdown, gaps). It also states a limitation ('Not a formal DGNB audit'), which helps set expectations. It doesn't mention authorization needs or side effects, but for a read-only self-assessment tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by return values and a caveat. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool does and how, the second states outputs and a key limitation. Zero waste.

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 tool has nested objects, an enum, and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns (pre-score, level, BIM level, breakdown, gaps) and its scope (20-question checklist, non-formal). It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this vs. directly related siblings (e.g., check_uae_bim_compliance), which slightly reduces completeness.

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 100%: 'answers' has a detailed description listing all question IDs, and 'cert_target' has an enum and description. The tool description adds context about the checklist ('20-question') but does not explain parameter formats or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's function: 'DGNB certification pre-score and BIM (ISO 19650) maturity self-assessment' with a specific verb (pre-score) and resource (DGNB/BIM maturity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on DGNB + ISO 19650 and explicitly notes it is 'Not a formal DGNB audit', setting it apart from other assessment 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 provides clear context for use: a self-assessment via a 20-question checklist, returning pre-score and gaps. It offers an explicit exclusion ('Not a formal DGNB audit'), implying it is for preliminary screening rather than official certification. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks the explicit alternatives required for a 5.

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