search_buildings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool searches, implying a read operation, but it does not confirm idempotency, safety, or disclose any behavioral traits such as partial matching, case sensitivity, pagination, or authentication needs.

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 with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and criteria.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately states the purpose but lacks any mention of what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints. It meets the minimum viable level but could be more informative.

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 schema description covers the parameter fully (100% coverage). The tool description adds no new information beyond what is already in the schema, as both state the same purpose ('Search term for building name or building number'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('buildings'), specifying the search criteria ('by name or building number'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_buildings' (likely lists all) and 'get_building_details' (details for a specific building).

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 usage when searching by name or number, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_buildings' or 'get_building_details', nor does it mention any preconditions or limitations.

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