Maa Infrast Purchase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about cost, what items are bought, whether the action is automated/irreversible, or what permissions/config are needed. The parenthetical only restates the verb rather than adding behavioral context.

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 a single short phrase with no wasted words and is front-loaded, but its brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameter is well documented, so those are covered. But with zero annotations and many closely related sibling tools, the description should explain domain context and when this purchase action applies, which it wholly omits.

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 description coverage is 100% (the single 'client' parameter is documented in the schema with a default), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about what 'client' controls in this 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 names a specific action and resource ('infrast purchase / buying materials'), so the agent knows it is a procurement action. However, it gives no domain framing and does not distinguish it from strong siblings such as maa_infrast_trade or maa_infrast_manage, which plausibly also involve acquiring items.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of maa_infrast_trade, maa_infrast_manage, or maa_infrast_production, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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