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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the load and does it well: it discloses the payoff (security level, guards, cameras, weak-spot clues, reward), the "watch for rumours" variability, the 5-per-day rate limit, and reassures that it is a play-money game where nothing real is taken. It never explicitly says the call is a safe read with no side effects on the target, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded, followed by the returned information and the quota in one compact clause. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical aside interrupts the flow slightly.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers purpose, timing, returned data, and rate limits. The only gap is failure behavior — what happens with an invalid or unknown painting id — which the schema partially addresses via the id format.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already explains the h:/s:/m: id formats and points at hall_tour. The description adds no additional meaning about the target parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Case a painting in the Hall before trying to steal it" gives a specific verb (reconnoiter a target) and resource (a Hall painting), and immediately positions it relative to the heist itself, which separates it from siblings like heist_attempt and hall_tour.

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 phrase "before trying to steal it" tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool and implicitly routes the follow-up action to heist_attempt. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when not to use it (e.g. after a heist has started).

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