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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries real weight here: it discloses the copper cost, the multi-minute duration, and the cancellation rule tied to leaving the building. It leaves one gap: "котировка" suggests a price quote, yet it is unclear whether the call charges immediately or returns a quote first.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action and location front-loaded, followed by cost/effects and then the interruption caveat. Slightly dense phrasing ("котировка и полный курс за медь") requires a second read, but nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers cost, duration, cancellation and healed conditions, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only failure behaviour (no copper, not inside a type-5 building, already at full HP).

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 the description has nothing to disambiguate beyond confirming the call is argument-free. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 concrete verb (being treated) and resource (hospital, inside building type 5), and enumerates exactly what it restores: HP, knocked-out slots and poisoning. It distinguishes itself from generic healing siblings such as game_use_item implicitly via the building-type prerequisite, but never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (must be inside a type-5 building, which implies game_enter_building first) and a usage constraint (treatment runs several real minutes and leaving the building aborts it). It does not mention alternatives such as healing via items or whether partial treatment is possible.

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