land_deeds_owned

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response shape ({status, data} with {count, uid} rows), the historical naming caveat, the observed null data for unrecognized accounts, and the fact that limit=2 and offset=5 had no effect in probes. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't cover every possible behavior (e.g., known account with no land), but it is transparent about what was observed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds caveats and observed behavior. Every sentence adds information: the historical name caveat, response shape, null behavior, and query probe results. It is slightly dense but not bloated, and the structure is logical.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential call semantics, response shape, and known edge cases. It doesn't explain return values in exhaustive detail, but it provides enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret the response. The main gap is not specifying the exact player identifier format, but overall it is reasonably complete for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'player' identifies the account and that the response contains per-region counts for that account. However, it doesn't add details about the player parameter format, whether it's a username or account name, or any constraints beyond minLength 1. The description adds some meaning but leaves the parameter semantics partially underspecified.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return the per-region plot counts reported for one account.' It also clarifies the historical name and that the response contains region rows rather than individual land records, which distinguishes it from land_deed_by_plot and land_deed_by_uid. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate it from the many land-related siblings.

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 implies usage: call it with one account to get per-region plot counts. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like land_deeds_search or land_regions_counts, nor does it state exclusions. The context about unrecognized accounts and query probes gives some practical guidance, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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