land_resources_balances_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so exceptionally. It details response structure, field types, date handling (both accepted formats and identical results), error cases (malformed dates return HTTP 500, unknown player returns empty array), and pagination behavior (limit/offset limits and their results). It also explicitly states the server does not convert, round, total, or compare fields. This is comprehensive and 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 long but every sentence provides meaningful behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then response format, then edge cases. While it could be tightened, the length is justified by the lack of annotations and the need to cover many edge cases. No sentence is redundant or wasteful.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the response shape, field types, accepted inputs, error conditions, pagination behavior, and the absence of transformation. An agent would have everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results without further lookup.

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, and it does. It explains startDate and endDate formats and their behavior, describes limit and offset with concrete examples (limit=1000/500 give HTTP 400, limit=3 works), and implies player is the account from the route. It also clarifies that offset values beyond the newest 100 return empty arrays. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb (list) and resource (resource-balance history rows), and identifies the exact upstream route (GET /land/resources/balances/history/{player}). It distinguishes itself from siblings like the count variant by describing the raw rows and noting 'This tool reports the rows returned by the upstream and nothing else.'

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 clearly states what the tool does and the context for its use (listing balance history for one account with optional dates), but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when to prefer a sibling like land_resources_balances_history_count. The behavioral details imply a raw-data tool, but there is no direct comparison to other tools, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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