land_regions_counts

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the unscoped call returns an empty list, named player still gets all 150 rows, which fields belong to the player (owned, dec_stake), and the unknown-name edge case. It even notes a limitation (behavior for known account with no holdings not captured). This is transparent and goes beyond basic expectations.

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 somewhat lengthy but packed with necessary behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into response shape and edge cases. Every sentence adds value, though it could be tightened by moving field details to the schema, but it remains well-structured and readable.

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 tool with 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain all parameters to enable correct invocation. It captures response structure and edge cases but omits the meaning of most parameters, making the definition incomplete for an agent to call it correctly. The complexity of the tool is moderate, but the gap in parameter semantics is significant.

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% and there are 7 parameters, yet the description explains only the player parameter implicitly. The other six parameters (rarity, status, geography, plot_type, magic_type, kingdom_type) are completely undocumented in the description, leaving the agent unable to determine their meaning or usage. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 region count rows from the endpoint GET /land/regions/counts, specifying the fields contained in each row. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from the many sibling land tools by naming the exact endpoint and data shape.

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 explains the effect of the player parameter (response always contains 150 regions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many land tools. It provides behavioral context but no direct comparisons or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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