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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: rectangle semantics (intersecting 16x16 chunks, not precise player positions), the caveat that missing hits do not imply inactivity, and a query-budget failure mode. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that materially change how results should be interpreted.

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 action and scope, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information. It is dense and runs long, but nothing reads as 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?

For a 7-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers the essentials: range limits, coordinate grouping rule, chunk-level approximation caveat, alternative tool, and failure mitigation. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it defines from/to as an inclusive UTC range and states that all four min/max coordinates must be supplied together for a rectangle. The dimension parameter (default 'overworld') is never explained, which is the one remaining gap.

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 precise verb+resource ('Get exact daily NoCom hit counts') plus the scope ('over inclusive UTC date range'), which distinguishes it immediately from the monthly sibling get_nocom_periods and from find_nocom_daily_chunks. An agent can route to it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives prerequisites ('Resolve named locations with get_location first'), the alternative to avoid ('Keep monthly get_nocom_periods distinct'), and a fallback action when the limit is hit ('Reduce area/date range if query budget is exceeded'). It also spells out the two range regimes: 366 days globally vs 31 days for a rectangle.

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