land_stake_dec_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so impressively. It details the response shape (status, data), the field types, the handling of empty arrays and refusal behavior, and even notes measured quirks like the change from object to empty array. It is transparent about upstream non-enforcement of required parameters and that the tool compensates.

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 verbose and unstructured, with repeated mentions of the refusal behavior and tangential notes like 'no numeric comparison was made.' It is a dense block of text that could be reorganized into concise bullets or separated into clear sections. While all content is relevant, it is not efficiently presented.

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?

Despite its verbosity, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: the response structure, the edge-case behaviors, the refusal logic, and the tool's scope. It is sufficient for calling the tool correctly, though it lacks a concrete example and could be trimmed. Given the simplicity of the tool and no output schema, it is largely complete.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that both player and region_uid are required (tool refuses without both) and maps them to 'one account and one land region'. However, it does not provide explicit formats, examples, or further semantics beyond that, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema 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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('DEC staking figures the upstream reports for one account and one land region'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from aggregating routes by saying it does not add figures across regions or compare with other routes. This makes it clearly different from siblings like land_stake_dec_overall.

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 context on when to use this tool: it is for a single region's figures, and it states what it does not do (no aggregation, no comparisons). It implies the alternative is the overall/staked routes but doesn't name them explicitly. It also clarifies that incomplete requests are refused, which is useful guidance.

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