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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful fact that the returned openingWarnings and roleNameTips are actionable diagnostics with prescribed fixes. It does not discuss size or performance of a 'full state' read, which is the one remaining behavioral unknown.

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-loads the scope statement and every subsequent sentence carries operational payload (use-before-update, warning remediation, status exclusion). The warning sentences are dense run-ons that could be split for scanability, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned sections and explains the semantics of openingWarnings and roleNameTips, so an agent knows what it will receive and what to do with it. For a two-param read tool this is complete.

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 50%: worldId is documented ("World id from list_worlds") but slug is bare, and the description never clarifies the relationship or precedence between the two identifiers. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does part of the work, but the slug/worldId ambiguity is a real gap the description could have closed.

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 ("Read one world's full V4 state") and enumerates the contents: settings, rules, playable config, mc_template roles. It also explicitly carves out status data as belonging to get_world_status, which separates it from the closest sibling.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ("Use this before update_world") and routes two follow-up remediation paths to specific siblings: fix warning labels via update_entry, and rewrite role names via upsert_panel. It also names alternatives for status (get_world_status / set_world_status), so the agent knows when not to use this tool.

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