land_power_core_available

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It specifies exact request counts ('Makes one logical GET request', 'may add one verified deed GET ... hard two-request limit'), pagination behavior ('One bounded page; no automatic continuation'), data limits ('100 rows and 256 KiB, with truncation reported'), error behavior ('Oversized records are refused'), and the point-in-time nature of availability. It also clarifies that no staking or bulk operation is performed, removing ambiguity about side effects.

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 long but dense, with each sentence conveying a distinct operational detail relevant to calling the tool correctly. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers constraints, limits, resolution behavior, and output characteristics. While not minimal, the verbosity is justified given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is admirably complete. It covers request limits, resolution freshness, truncation, and even warns about point-in-time data. The main omission is a structured description of the response format beyond mentions of 'ids list' and metadata, but it does note that populated results include plot identities and freshness. Overall, it is nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 compensate. It does add meaning for plot_id and deed_uid ('Supply exactly one plot_id (numeric or display label) or deed_uid; the original UID spelling is also accepted') and clarifies that other filters are forwarded without implied effectiveness. However, it does not explain parameters like name, item_detail_id, or the exact role of offset/limit beyond the implicit page bound. Coverage is partial, leaving several parameters underspecified.

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 opens with 'Read available Power Core item IDs for an explicit player and deed' – a clear verb+resource specifying exactly what the tool does. It further scopes the operation to the STK-LND-PCR stake type, which distinguishes it from other land tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as land_power_core_grouped, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 constraints (

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