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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the capped 300 bps bonus, that a Muscle holding a weapon grants it, that the convoy/Ledger contracts have no weapons module today so the bonus is 0, that round-3 testnet deploy activates it, and that vehicle heist and apartment raid take no weapons by design. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: weapon range and return fields come first, then the bonus mechanics and the connectivity caveat. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical about round-3 deployment is a touch verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what the listing contains and explains the currently-inert bonus mechanic plus where to check live switches. For a read-only catalog in a rules-heavy game, nothing an agent needs to interpret results is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that wallet adds the weapon bonus preview. The description restates the bonus concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource (weapon shop listing) and enumerates exactly what is returned: price, supply left, and the Stash rank required for ids 1 to 6. An agent can distinguish this catalog call from prepare_weapon_buy, which is named as the purchase path.

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?

Explicitly routes buying to prepare_weapon_buy and states 'Read only', plus points to city_state.switches for what is live. It stops short of naming when this tool should not be called (e.g. versus vehicle_shop), but the read-vs-buy split is clear.

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