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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this call is free, that real USDC is only spent on founding or business days, and that in-game cash is simulated. It also explains the simulation basis (real resident count and wealth divided by rivals). This informs the agent about side effects and cost implications, though it could mention idempotency or read-only status more explicitly.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the free read action and its purpose. It packs substantial detail about inputs, outputs, and cost separation into a compact block. Slightly longer than strictly needed, but every sentence adds context about behavior or returned data.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, what data it draws on, what it returns, and how real vs simulated money behaves. It also routes to venture_play_terms for related terms, making the surrounding context complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous coverage). The description compensates by explaining the output context and what data is returned, so an agent knows what to expect despite the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to document, a high score is appropriate for providing meaningful usage context.

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 clearly identifies the tool as reading the Venture game board before founding a company, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Venture game board'). It elaborates on the context (business simulation on live city data) and distinguishes itself from related tools like venture_play_terms by explicitly pointing to that sibling for cost terms.

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?

The description states when to use it ('before you found a company') and mentions what it returns, which implies it is the market-read step. It names venture_play_terms for pricing terms, giving a clear alternative for a specific need. It does not comprehensively enumerate exclusions versus all siblings, but the key routing is clear.

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