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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the 100-result cap, ascending order, and that no API key is required — though it omits what to do for further pages (e.g. re-calling with the last returned number).

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 dense sentence front-loads the result cap and resource, then qualifies ordering and start point. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return (up to 100 free plot numbers, in order, after a given number) and the auth-free access. Only the paging/next-call behavior is left unstated.

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 single parameter already documents 'Start after this plot number.' The description restates this ('starting after a number you choose') without adding format, edge-case (e.g. 0 = from the beginning), or boundary meaning. Baseline 3 fits when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (plot numbers free to claim) with scope and ordering, and the endpoint GET /availability. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_plot (single plot) and claim_plot (the mutation), though it 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?

The description implies usage (scan for free plots before claiming, starting after a chosen number), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as get_plot or claim_plot. An agent must infer the intended workflow.

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