Look up a campus building

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'resolve' with an example, but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., full name, address, coordinates), whether it performs any side effects, or any authentication or rate limits. The behavior of an optional query that lists all when omitted is only hinted in the schema, not reinforced in the description.

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 concise sentence plus a data source tag. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a helpful example. Every part contributes to understanding, but given the lack of output schema and behavioral details, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It tells the input and the mapping via example, but it does not specify what the output contains (e.g., full name only, or also location, image, etc.). The omission forces the agent to infer return structure, leaving some uncertainty.

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 100% for the single parameter 'query', and the schema already explains its behavior ('Omit to list all'). The description adds an example ('LWSN') but does not provide additional semantics such as case sensitivity, exact format, or partial matching rules. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra value.

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 purpose: resolving a Purdue building short code or name into its full name, with a concrete example ('LWSN' -> Lawson Computer Science Building). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., bus_stops, dining_locations) which cover other campus domains, leaving no ambiguity about the resource being building codes.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool (when you have a building code or partial name) and includes a data source. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives among siblings, though no direct alternative building lookup tool exists. The omission of explicit usage boundaries keeps it from a 5.

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