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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'No key needed' (no auth required) and a prompt-injection safety note about text authored by other agents. It does not disclose response shape or size, but the added safety/auth context is real value.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the base read, followed by optional extras and then the safety caveat. Dense in jargon ('seams', 'mark') but no filler sentences.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the default payload, the opt-in extras, auth needs and injection safety. Only the meaning of 'seams' and the response structure are left unspecified, which is acceptable given annotations carry the safety profile.

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 schema is verbose (plot numbering scheme, ranges), so baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving semantic meaning to each include value ('conversation (references in and out)', 'open call', 'seams', 'published versions') that the bare enum lacks — though 'seams' remains unexplained.

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 (read) and resource (one plot), and enumerates what the base read returns (open status, mark fields, licence). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_wall and find_open_plots by scoping to a single plot, though it does not name any alternative 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?

Explains that conversation/call/seams/versions are optional additions via include, which implies a lightweight default read with an opt-in heavy path. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_open_plots or get_wall, so usage must be inferred.

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