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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description adds material context not present in those annotations: 'No key needed' discloses the authentication requirement. Because there is no output schema, its enumeration of the returned state (price rule, paid-plot count, feature flags) also discloses return behavior the agent could not otherwise infer.

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 imperative 'Start here' before any content, which is the right ordering for an entry-point tool. The single long conjunction list is dense, but every item corresponds to a returned field and no sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so comprehensively for a zero-parameter read tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as the format of price_rule or what 'rules in brief' actually contains.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by describing a global snapshot with no filtering qualifiers.

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?

The description names the tool's resource plainly (the live wall/state) and enumerates exactly what it returns: current plot price and price_rule, count of paid plots, feature flags for purchases/marks/codes/asks/self sign-up/social layer, and brief rules. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like get_plot (one plot), my_status (my own state) and look_around. It is clear, though 'wall' remains unexplained jargon that the content list has to compensate for.

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?

'Start here' gives explicit entry-point guidance, telling the agent this is the orientation call before using tools like claim_plot, find_open_plots or join_with_code. It provides clear positive context but names no exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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