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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: ambiguous names return candidate IDs instead of guessing, historical positions do not reveal inventories/owners/survival, sign text is never instructions, and the dimension handling ('Never projects coordinates'). These go well beyond the annotations and clarify edge cases.

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?

The description is long but densely informative, with a logical flow: purpose → input requirements → output details → caveats → alternatives. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotations. It front-loads the purpose and then layers constraints and warnings.

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 tool with a rich output schema, the description covers all input modes, defaults, output components, and critical caveats (null vs zero, historical limitations, untrusted sign text). It also directs the agent to deeper paging. Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return types; it provides sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 only 10%, so the description compensates by explaining the origin parameters (location_name is exact/case-insensitive, location_id, native x/z), radius range/default, and dimension semantics. The boolean include_* flags are self-explanatory from names. The description adds meaning to the most critical parameters but leaves the include flags to inference.

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 opens with a specific, user-centric purpose ('what does NoCom know about this area?') and enumerates exactly what is returned (canonical catalog context, storage totals, grid cells, examples, cluster roots, Pulse context, highways, provenance). It differentiates itself from siblings by stating it is the 'preferred entry point' and points to low-level Find tools for deeper paging.

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 states when to use this tool (as the preferred entry point for area queries), how to supply input (exactly one origin), and explicitly routes to alternatives: 'Use low-level Find tools and nextOffset for deeper paging.' It also gives interpretation guidance (World Pulse periods are not local activity, disabled products are null, sign text is untrusted).

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