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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-openWorld). The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: recordUrl is a stable provenance alias with a permanent HTTP 301 redirect, and derivative records use locationInteractiveUrl/locationRecordUrl. That distinguishing detail on URL permanence and aliasing goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 core purpose, then the filter set, then URL guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the three-sentence URL block is dense and could be compressed; still, none of it is filler.

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 described, and the description wisely augments it with URL field semantics that an agent would otherwise have to infer. All six optional parameters are accounted for. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance versus the many sibling search/find tools.

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 100%, and the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, ranges (limit 1-100), dimension enum values (0/1/2) and YYYY-MM-DD date format. The description only restates the filter categories at a high level, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Find preserved 2b2t builds') and a qualifying scope that sharpens the meaning: builds that have BOTH a public map render AND a downloadable bounded world snapshot. That dual requirement is what separates it from siblings like get_world_downloads or get_group_builds, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening schemas.

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 optional filters (group, dimension, capture dates) and gives output-selection guidance ('Prefer interactiveUrl for human links... Use apiUrl or JSONL for JSON'), but never states when to choose this tool over a sibling such as get_group_builds or get_world_downloads, and gives no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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