land_liquidity_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and delivers: it reveals behavior for garbage inputs (genuine empty arrays, no synthesised entry), token case-sensitivity, observed resource symbols, and the pass-through of fields unchanged. It omits explicit error handling or auth notes, but the coverage for a simple read route is strong.

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 packs the endpoint, validation findings, case-sensitivity, observed resource symbols, and a full field list into a compact set of sentences. It is front-loaded with the route and has no filler, though the validation narrative is slightly dense.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates all row fields and confirms they are returned unchanged, which is critical for invocation. It also covers edge cases for invalid parameters. Missing error conditions or authentication details, but for a simple list tool the context is largely complete.

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 identifies player and token as path parameters and notes token case-sensitivity, but it never defines what constitutes a valid player identifier or what token represents (e.g., API key vs. auth token). This is partial compensation, not full clarity.

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 lists per-region resource rows from a specific GET endpoint, with a precise route template. It does not explicitly differentiate this from the many land_resources_* and land_liquidity_* siblings, but the route and naming provide strong context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives. It describes the endpoint and validation behavior but never states a selection condition or names any exclusion context.

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