land_power_core_grouped

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

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond annotations: one bounded page with no auto-continuation, point-in-time API evidence not a guarantee, no staking operation, one logical GET request, local limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reporting, oversized records refused, and reference resolution may add one verified deed GET with a hard two-request limit. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and then covers behavioral constraints. It's longer than ideal but packed with necessary caveats for correct invocation.

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 tool's complexity (11 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameter selection, behavioral limits, and error handling. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output shape, but the description mentions what fields are preserved (item_detail_id, name, item_count, string boost) and truncation reporting.

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 explains the key parameter semantics: supply exactly one plot_id (numeric or display label) or deed_uid, original UID spelling accepted, required inputs reflect tool policy and measured upstream requirements, other declared filters are forwarded as supplied with effectiveness not implied. It doesn't detail every parameter but covers the critical ones.

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 reads grouped available Power Core item counts for an explicit player and deed, restricted to the STK-LND-PCR stake type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like land_power_core_available by emphasizing the grouped nature and explicit player/deed requirement.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for reading grouped available Power Core counts with an explicit player and deed, restricted to STK-LND-PCR. It notes that no staking or bulk stake-change is performed, which helps differentiate from mutation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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