land_resources_balances_history_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is exceptionally transparent. It discloses the exact response shape ({status, data} with count as an unchanged JSON number), explicit non-transformations ('does not convert, round or derive it'), and observed edge-case behaviors: far-past date returns 0, malformed date returns HTTP 500, and unknown player returns 0 without proving existence. It even documents the relationship between count and list results, including the unverified assumption.

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 front-loaded with purpose and response shape, then organized around behavioral findings, which helps navigation. However, it is quite long and includes extensive probe-by-probe detail about list parameters (limit=3&offset=0, offset=1, offset=2, offset=3, limit=500, limit=1000) that could be summarized without losing meaning. Most sentences do add behavioral context, but the verbosity keeps it from being tightly concise.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essential return contract, key edge cases, and the relationship to the paired list tool. The only notable omissions are concrete date-parameter semantics/format and any mention of authentication or error handling beyond HTTP 500/400 observations. For a simple count endpoint, this is a highly complete definition, though a small gap remains in date parameter guidance.

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 clarify that 'player' is a path segment and that dates are optional, and it references date-range behavior in probes. However, it never explains the meaning or format of startDate versus endDate, their ordering, or expected date syntax, which an agent needs to call the tool correctly. This is only partial compensation for the schema's total lack of parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the resource-balance history count the upstream reports for one account and optional dates' and ties it to the exact route GET /land/resources/balances/history/{player}/count. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling land_resources_balances_history, which is the list counterpart. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but it provides strong contextual usage guidance by explaining the count's relationship to the list route, including what was probed and what the tool does not assert. It also clarifies that the player is a path segment, not a query parameter, and that the tool 'reports the count returned by the upstream and nothing else.' This gives an agent a clear sense of when and how to rely on the result, though it stops short of an explicit when-to-use vs. alternate-tool statement.

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