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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: the 16384x16384 rectangle cap, row limits (max 1000, default 100), cursor-consistency rules, and the privacy note that no player identities/visits/ownership are inferred.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then limits, pagination, and output/privacy notes. Every sentence earns its place, though the packed multi-clause style is slightly heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers pagination, row caps, the CSV alternative, and privacy boundaries. It is complete enough for correct invocation, missing only explicit sibling routing and per-axis bound semantics.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does reasonably well: it explains date as a UTC day, the large number of bound parameters as a rectangle with a size cap, limit's max/default, cursor as nextCursor, and dimension via the export note. Only the exact meaning of individual min_x/min_z/max_x/max_z axes and the dimension enum values are left implicit.

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 and resource ('List observed NoCom chunks and exact counts') scoped precisely to one UTC day and a native-block rectangle. It is easy to distinguish from the many other find_nocom_* tools by its daily/chunk/rectangle framing, though it never names its closest siblings (get_nocom_daily_dataset, get_nocom_daily_hits) explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: follow nextCursor with unchanged date/dimension/bounds for pagination, and use the linked gzip CSV when a complete dimension/day export is needed. This routes the agent to an alternative under a clear condition, though it doesn't state when to prefer this over the sibling daily dataset/hits tools.

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