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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It does not say whether opening the window requires a location check, whether it changes any game state, whether it can fail, or how the sell flow continues afterwards.

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 naming the action and the target; nothing redundant or padded. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter navigation tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: an agent knows what opens, but not the preconditions or what the opened window exposes. A short clause about location requirements or the follow-up sell action would close the gap.

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 disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter 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?

The description gives a specific verb plus resource in Russian ('Открыть окно скупщика Алекса Калиты') and names the NPC and the location context (public factory of New Moscow). It implicitly distinguishes itself from game_kalita_sell (opening the interface vs. selling), but never names that sibling 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?

No guidance on when to call this instead of game_kalita_sell or the generic game_vendor_buy/game_shop tools. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as needing to be physically at the public factory or having previously entered the building.

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