building_class_composition

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions it returns a percentage breakdown, but does not note that it is a read-only operation, any edge cases, or potential limitations (e.g., reliance on building type tags). This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, easy to read and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, but as a summary it is appropriately sized.

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 existence of an output schema and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify radius units, return format, or any context about building types. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks critical operational context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description fails to compensate. It does not explain that lat/lng are coordinates, that radius_m is in meters, or any constraints. The phrase 'within a radius' is too vague to clarify the parameters.

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 a specific action: getting a percentage breakdown of building types within a radius. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like building_count_in_radius (count) and land_use_composition (land use, not building types).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as count_places_by_type_in_radius or road_surface_composition.

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