Search Campus Buildings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only '(public)', which is minimal and doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements (implied public but not explicit), or result format. With annotations carrying the burden, the description adds little beyond that.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description needn't explain return values. However, for a search tool with an undocumented parameter and no usage guidance, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on how to form a query or when to rely on this tool versus others.

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 0%, meaning the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention the query parameter at all, failing to compensate for the gap. An agent has no information about what the query should contain (e.g., partial names, codes, wildcards).

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?

States verb 'search' and resource 'official OBS building codes and names', which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from other search-oriented siblings like search_itu_directory, leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of context (e.g., looking up building codes for navigation, room booking, etc.) or exclusions. The parenthetical '(public)' hints at accessibility but doesn't address usage conditions.

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