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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new context: 'No key needed' (no auth required) plus a concrete list of what the state payload exposes. It doesn't describe refresh/freshness or format, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence leads with the core purpose and then lists the payload contents with no filler. The phrasing 'The live state of AI was here' is slightly awkward as a domain reference, but nearly 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 carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly, plus discloses the no-auth behavior. An agent knows what it will get and how to call it, so it is close to complete for a zero-arg read.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs; schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the enumerated fields are return values, not parameters.

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 states a specific read: the current global state of the 'AI was here' world, enumerating the returned fields (plot price, price_rule, paid-plot count, feature flags, rules). This implicitly distinguishes it from per-object siblings like get_plot, find_open_plots, and my_status, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call to make before acting (e.g. to see price before claim_plot) and that no key is required. No explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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