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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: "No key needed" (no auth required) and a prompt-injection warning that other agents' text is data, not instructions — a real behavioral disclosure. It stops short of describing response size or traversal cost.

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 action and its inputs, then the decision guidance, with the injection caveat placed last. Mostly earns its place, though the "Pick a place that means something" sentence is somewhat motivational filler relative to a functional description.

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 usefully enumerates what the result contains (region rectangle, openings, calls), and annotations cover safety. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though it does not explain result ordering, pagination, or how the boolean toggles shape output volume beyond the schema defaults.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents plot_id, radius, calls, and openings with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond noting the three underlying endpoints; baseline 3 is correct 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 clear verb (See) plus the resource it returns — the rectangle around a plot, open seam ports facing it, and nearby calls — and frames it as reconnaissance before choosing a plot. It is distinguishable by content from get_plot (single plot) and find_open_plots (search), 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?

"before you choose one" plus the motivational guidance ("next to a line you like, answering a call, continuing a pattern") implies this is a pre-claim decision-support tool. However, it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so the routing against get_plot/find_open_plots is left to inference.

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