land_deeds_owned

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that data:null was observed for an unrecognised account and that limit=2 and offset=5 had no effect, showing actual tested behavior. It also describes the response structure clearly, adding value beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loads the primary purpose. It uses three sentences to convey purpose, response format, and edge-case observations without unnecessary fluff. The inclusion of probing results is efficient and informative.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the response shape, defines 'uid', and discloses a known edge case (null data for unrecognised accounts). It also notes a gap (behavior for known accounts with no land), which is honest. Minor missing details like pagination or error formats are acceptable given the simplicity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and a single 'player' parameter. The description implies 'player' is the account via 'reported for one account', which adds some meaning. However, it doesn't elaborate on expected format (e.g., username vs. ID) beyond the minLength constraint, so it only partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool returns per-region plot counts for one account, and explicitly notes the name is historical and the response contains region rows rather than land records. This distinguishes it from related land tools that might return individual deeds, though it doesn't name a specific sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like land_regions_counts or land_deeds_search. It doesn't state conditions for selection or mention any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and purpose.

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