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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait ('Read only.') plus the shape of what comes back for each parameter combination. It does not cover limits, freshness of the raid list, or error behavior for unknown crewId/wallet, so it meets the minimum but is not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its full field inventory, then the parameter-dependent extras. Dense but every clause names distinct data; the long parenthetical field list is the only mild clutter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return contents, and it does so exhaustively for both the no-arg and parameterized cases. An agent can call this correctly with what is given; only edge cases (invalid ids, staleness) are unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: crewId yields that crew's Safehouse immunity window and cooldown, and wallet yields that wallet's cooldown and Safehouses bought this week. That is substantially more informative than the schema's generic 'a crew id' and 'Your own 0x wallet address'.

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 (Season2Tricks state) and enumerates exactly which fields it reports: live/flags, trick prices, Safehouse price, missed-raid stake loss, and latest squad raids. That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like city_state or me, but the subject matter is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than directed: the second sentence tells the agent to 'Pass crewId for...' and 'wallet for...', which conveys the conditional read patterns. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no alternative state tool is named for the no-parameter case.

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