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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the set is fixed at 60, results come back alphabetically in a single response with no pagination, and data is cached for one hour. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the remaining disclosure is appropriately handled.

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 fact and set size, then the returned fields. The long field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though the run-on sentence could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating every returned field (slug, name, tier, is_safezone, radiation flags, recyclers, tunnel/chinook/crash flags, no_build_area_sqm, icon_url). Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no filtering or paging arguments exist.

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 (list all fixed monuments) plus scope qualifiers: fixed-location only, alphabetical, complete set of 60, no pagination. Distinguishes clearly from the singular get_monument and from search_world_entities by naming what is excluded (moving monuments / Cargo Ship).

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?

Gives clear selection context: use this for the full static set in one call since it is not paginated, and moving monuments are explicitly out of scope. It does not explicitly route to get_monument for per-monument detail, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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