land_liquidity_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it explains the pivot/fan-out behavior, discloses the empty-array edge case for unknown or case-mismatched players, and explicitly states that upstream rows are returned unchanged. This goes well beyond the minimum.

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 information-dense yet tightly organized: main function, comparison, selection rule, edge case, and pass-through behavior. Every sentence contributes unique value, and the most important routing guidance appears prominently.

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 what an agent needs: endpoint, result shape, sibling distinction, trade-offs, when to choose the alternative, and edge-case behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references the {player} path parameter, ties it to the endpoint, and notes case-mismatch behavior. It does not elaborate on player format or constraints beyond the schema, but for a single self-explanatory parameter this is sufficient.

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 resource and action: 'Get one row per region from GET /land/liquidity/region/{player}' and immediately differentiates it from the related per-token route. It clearly names what the tool returns and how it relates to sibling land_liquidity_resources, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly contrasts this tool with the named per-token route, listing what is gained (plots_owned, human-readable region name) and what is lost (id, created_date, last_updated_date), and gives a direct selection rule: choose the per-token route when record metadata is needed. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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