land_resources_balances_history_window

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: bounded windows, count-checked rows returned with a cursor, and a concrete cost bound (at most 40,320 count/list calls for a 14-day traversal at one-minute granularity, with empty spans skipped). That call-budget disclosure is genuinely useful for planning.

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?

Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by traversal strategy and a cost bound. Each sentence contributes; there is no filler, though the call-budget sentence is dense.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description does cover the return shape ('count-checked rows with a cursor') and the traversal cost model. But it leaves the limit parameter and player/date input formats unexplained, so an agent still lacks enough to call every parameter confidently.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the cursor in the return behavior and 'UTC timestamp windows' hints at date semantics, but limit, the player identifier format, and the exact start/end date format are never explained, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read bounded UTC timestamp windows of one player's public Land balance history.' The 'window' framing and 'one player' scope are clear, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling land_resources_balances_history (unbounded variant) or balances_history_count, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name.

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?

It gives real strategic guidance ('Use counts to skip empty spans and descend only where rows exist'), implying the count sibling should precede list calls. However it never states when to prefer this windowed tool over the plain balances_history variant or when not to use it, so alternative selection remains implied rather than explicit.

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