get_building

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description's added value is the enumeration of record contents (construction, areas, heating, EGRID, dwellings), but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown EGIDs or about payload size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler: the resource and key come first, followed by a compact field list. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient; the field list partly compensates for the absent output schema. Remaining gaps are the undefined "GWR" abbreviation and the unstated not-found behavior.

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%, and the schema itself explains egid with an example and max_dwellings with its cap and the "0 = summary only" special case. The description only reinforces the EGID key and is silent on max_dwellings, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured data; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Full GWR record of one building by EGID" states a specific resource (one building) and lookup key (EGID), and the colon-list enumerates what the record contains. It is distinguishable from search_buildings/buildings_near because it retrieves a single known entity by identifier, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "by EGID" signals this is a detail fetch for a known identifier, which an agent can reasonably pair with search_buildings. There is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisites (must have an EGID first), and no mention of what to do when the record does not exist.

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