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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the kinds of data returned (coordinate system, claim, limits, materials), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope beyond safety flags.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value list followed by a clear usage instruction. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description lists the high-level categories of returned data but does not specify types or structure. Nonetheless, for an informational tool used before building, it provides enough context for typical invocation.

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% for parameter 'space', and the description does not explain its meaning or expected format (e.g., space ID or name). This leaves a significant gap for the agent to correctly set the parameter.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Returns' with explicit list of outputs (coordinate system, buildable claim, edit limits, material guidance) and includes when to call ('before building'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_material_palette' or 'inspect_region'.

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 states 'Call this before building', providing clear context for usage. However, does not specify when not to use it or alternative tools, but the directive is sufficient for typical use.

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