land_income_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the 100-row / 1 MiB body cap, the fallback to the catalogue transaction lookup for oversized same-millisecond groups, budget accounting, and per-transaction-ID caching. This is genuinely useful context beyond the structured annotations, though some sentences drift into output-field mechanics.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a dense, jargon-heavy wall of text mixing internal fallback mechanics, return-field names, and caching notes without clear structure. Several implementation details crowd out more useful guidance, so it is neither wastefully short nor cleanly organized.

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 appropriately describes return fields (basis, group_rows, matched_rows, unmatched_rows, complete) and caveats (current_rate_per_day is an estimate, not realized income). However, given four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage routing, the definition is incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 carry the full burden for all four parameters. It addresses 'days' (max 14, completed UTC days) and hints at 'resource' via 'raw resource units,' but says nothing about the required 'player' argument or the 'endDate' parameter's semantics or format. Partial compensation only.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize up to 14 completed UTC days of public Land balance movements in raw resource units, without DEC valuation.' This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as land_resources_balances_history or land_resources_history, so the agent cannot easily tell which one to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling history/balance tools. The only scoping statement is 'No Hive history is scanned,' which is a boundary rather than a routing rule. The agent must infer the usage context from the dense prose.

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