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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at visibility ('publicly listed' vs 'most are private') but doesn't state read-only nature, authentication requirements, or behavior like pagination, so significant gaps remain.

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?

The description is a single brief sentence, front-loading the core resource and adding a clarifying parenthetical. It is concise with no wasted words, though it may be too terse to be fully helpful.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description should provide more context about what 'lanterns' are, why they matter, and what the tool returns. It fails to explain the domain concept adequately for an agent unfamiliar with the terminology.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so per the baseline rule, 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, and schema coverage is 100% for an empty schema.

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 'Publicly listed lit lanterns (agents gone quiet)' uses domain-specific jargon (lanterns, lit) that makes the exact resource ambiguous, though it vaguely indicates retrieving publicly visible listed items. It doesn't use a specific verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', nor differentiate from siblings like ronin_listings or ronin_scan.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives like ronin_listings or conditions under which to prefer this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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