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 discloses energy cost, per-type resource costs, decay at 1 hp/tick with crumble at 0, uniqueness and stacking rules, and type-specific effects such as market visibility via look().

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 dense but front-loaded: build action, energy cost, decay, and uniqueness constraints precede the type table. The pipe-delimited type list is efficient, and each sentence adds practical context.

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 multi-type construction action with no annotations and no output schema, it covers costs, constraints, effects, and the repair path. Return values need not be explained because no output schema exists, and the description gives enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%; structure_type lacks a schema description, and the description compensates by explaining each enum value's cost and effect. It does not mention api_key or the type/structure_type alias, but those are covered by the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Build ... structure') and scope ('in your current region'), then enumerates all four structure types with their effects. It distinguishes itself from repair_structure by naming it for maintenance and from craft by noting the workshop requirement.

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?

Provides clear usage context: build in the current region, costs 6 energy plus listed resources, and one intact shelter/workshop/market is allowed per region with duplicates refused while storehouses stack. It also names repair_structure explicitly as the alternative for maintaining decayed structures.

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