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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so: it declares 'Read only,' explains the units of the returned modifiers (basis points; 100 = 1 point), and states that the value is conditional on a vehicle having been declared. It doesn't cover error behaviour when no vehicle is declared, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One dense sentence plus a two-word read-only marker and a routing sentence — no filler, and the game-context payoff is front-loaded ahead of the sibling pointer. The clause structure is heavy (three stacked modifiers with a parenthetical unit note), which costs it the top score.

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, and the description compensates by naming the three modifiers the read returns and their unit convention, so an agent knows what it's getting. It stops short of describing the response shape (field names, whether all three are always present), which is the only meaningful omission for a one-parameter read.

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 is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents that 'wallet' is the caller's own 0x address and that nothing is sent from it. The description adds only the framing that the wallet must already have a declared vehicle; it introduces no new syntax or format semantics. 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?

The description is domain-specific: it returns what a wallet's declared ground vehicle grants as a DRIVER of a convoy hit or Ledger job — speed odds, armour, and a vault cargo cut. An agent can distinguish it from the shop/declaration siblings (vehicle_shop, prepare_vehicle_bring). The verb is implicit ('what ... gives it') rather than stated outright, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It names the prerequisite alternative explicitly: 'Declare a vehicle with prepare_vehicle_bring,' which tells the agent what to do if this read comes back empty or before it becomes meaningful. It doesn't state when to prefer this read over other edge-lookup tools such as get_fighter_edge, but the vehicle-specific context makes the boundary clear.

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