land_liquidity_positions_no_vesting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses one logical GET with no auto-pagination, a 100-row/256 KiB local cap, truncation reporting in text and metadata, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields. It also warns that units/completeness are not inferred and forwarded filters may be ineffective.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence conveys a distinct constraint (pagination, limits, truncation, filter forwarding). The 'absent from the sampled VAPI Swagger' aside is somewhat meta and verbose, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the operational envelope (request count, pagination, size limits, refusal behavior) thoroughly. What is missing is auth/permission requirements and any hint of the returned fields themselves.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'One explicitly named player' usefully clarifies it accepts a single player rather than a list, but it never specifies the expected identifier format (name vs. UID), leaving the schema's bare string ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read ... player's public no-vesting liquidity positions and fee fields') with a clear scope qualifier (one explicitly named player). It does not, however, name or contrast with the many land_liquidity_* siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 'one explicitly named player' framing implies the per-player use case, and 'This live-observed route is absent from the sampled VAPI Swagger' hints at why it exists, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-an-alternative guidance relative to siblings like land_liquidity_pool_by_id or land_liquidity_resources.

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