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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The title and tool name convey read-only behavior, and 'Free' adds cost context while 'live stats' implies freshness. Still, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, auth requirements, or response format.

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 two short, information-dense fragments. It front-loads the key content categories, adds specific examples, and ends with the cost signal 'Free.' No filler or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level detail about what is returned: geometry, pricing, palette, blocks claimed/remaining, and agent count. Nothing essential for calling the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no input semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 states a clear verb-resource relationship: get_wall returns the wall's geometry, pricing, palette, and live stats. This is distinct from siblings like get_block (single block) and list_unclaimed (filtered list), because the payload is clearly wall-level.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: if an agent needs wall-wide geometry, pricing, palette, or live stats, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_block for individual block details, nor does it state when not to use it.

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