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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects. The description does add genuinely non-obvious behavior — the return payload changes contextually (mine yields a map) — but says nothing about cost (energy/time), whether it works during battle, or failure modes, so it stays at adequate.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and then the payload list. Nothing is padding, though the shorthand phrasing ('Z для входа') is a bit cryptic for an agent that may not know the keybinding convention.

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 parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description carries the burden of describing the return contents — and it does, enumerating all the scene elements including the mine-specific map. Only the absence of cost/availability caveats keeps it short of full completeness.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema is fully self-sufficient here.

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 specific verb ('Осмотреться') and enumerates exactly what the tool reports: cell, buildings, NPCs, nearby players, adjacent cells, plus a map in the mine. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like game_status or game_player_info, though it never names a 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?

Usage is implied (look around to see your surroundings) and the parenthetical 'Z для входа' hints that buildings are entered via a separate action, but it never states when to call this versus game_move, game_status, or game_enter_building, and gives no exclusions.

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