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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful side effects beyond the schema: the build is also recorded in the scout-land, referral, and design-royalty ledgers, and that it delegates to create_house. It omits permissions/auth, irreversibility, and failure modes on already-occupied land.

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?

Three compact clauses with the action front-loaded, then mechanism, then side effects. No filler, though the '/earth' reference is only useful to agents that know that surface.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and its ledger side effects, but leaves out error conditions, whether re-building on the same parcel is allowed, and what the caller receives back.

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 all six parameters (including defaults for name, zoning, area_m2, and the template_id purpose) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that zoning/area/name are optional and adds 'injects regulations', so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: build a house on a given parcel, with lat/lng required and zoning/area/name optional. It also explains the mechanism (injects coordinates and regulations into create_house), which lets an agent distinguish it from calling create_house directly.

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?

The mention of 'same API as /earth's build-on-this-land' implies the use case, and the input implies 'when you have coordinates'. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling create_house, nor any exclusion or precondition (e.g. land must be unbuilt).

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