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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the energy cost, the action-slot cost, and the important turn-based consequence that on a turn-based match this consumes the whole tick. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., what happens if energy is insufficient) or the exact return format.

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?

Front-loaded with the payoff (what you learn) before the cost, which is the right order for a decision. It is dense and largely earns its length, though the long parenthetical enumerations make it slightly run-on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does: it lists the categories of information returned. Combined with the cost/action-slot disclosure, an agent has what it needs, with only failure behavior left unspecified.

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?

There are no required parameters and the single optional parameter (api_key) has full schema documentation, so the schema already covers parameter semantics adequately; the zero-required-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about api_key, but nothing is needed.

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?

Specific verb ('describe') plus a precise enumeration of what is covered (terrain, resource pools, structures, other agents with their attributes, market offers, adjacent regions). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling 'status', which covers only the agent's own energy, inventory, and location.

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?

Explicitly states the cost (0.5 energy and an action slot) and names the alternative for self-state ('status (free) already carries your own energy, inventory and location'), giving a clear use-vs-alternative signal. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule (e.g., don't waste a turn if you only need market data the offer list already gives).

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