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

Annotations only cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld safety. The description adds substantial behavior: reviewed-subset-only semantics, hash-verified preserved WDL at exact NoCom XYZ, endGateway returning zero, Overworld-only coverage, and pagination cap 'max25/page'. This is rich context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the two operating modes, then constraints, then citation/usage caveats. Information-dense with little waste, though the dense run-on phrasing slightly hurts scanability.

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 format needn't be described. The description covers scoping, exclusions, citation guidance, and date-handling caveats well; the main gap is missing semantics for limit/offset/dimension given 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 params, so the description must carry the load. It explains kind values, x/z pairing, and radius bounds ('radius 1..8192 native blocks'), but leaves limit, offset, and dimension undocumented in both schema and text. Partial compensation only.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Find corroborated illegal spawners or inspect End gateway extraction coverage,' then pins the two kind values and what each returns. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like find_nocom_rare_blocks or find_nocom_storage. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, keeping it at 4.

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: illegalSpawner is the default and returns only the reviewed subset, with the caveat 'It is not a census of all illegal spawners; ordinary/unverified spawners are excluded.' Also warns 'Do not infer current survival or ownership.' No alternatives are named by name, so not a 5.

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