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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: fixed page size of 8, 0-based paging, and the fact that pricing is not returned here but on the separate purchase call. It does not describe the shape of the returned blueprint data, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 with the mode split front-loaded and zero filler. It is slightly compressed, but every clause carries operational meaning (building type, mode branch, page size, price caveat).

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the branching behavior, pagination size and origin, and the price-fetch caveat. Remaining gaps, valid category codes and the returned blueprint fields, are modest and largely discoverable through the summary mode.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does: page is explicitly 0-based and category acts as a mode switch selecting a per-category listing. It does not say what valid category values look like (single character per the schema), leaving the agent to discover them from the no-category summary call.

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 names a specific resource (public factory, building type 36) and states the two operating modes: a blueprint-category summary or a page of blueprints. It is distinguishable from game_plant_buy/give/make only indirectly, via the closing note that the gold price is fetched on a separate purchase request, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives a clear conditional rule: call with no category for the category summary, with category for a page. The purchase path is only alluded to as 'a separate request' without naming the sibling tool, so the agent must infer that game_plant_buy is the follow-up.

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