land_stake_evp_pending_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and compensates richly. It discloses the response shape, that zero is successful, the lack of account existence semantics, the refusal to accept no player, and the non-normalization of values. This goes beyond typical transparency, though it doesn't cover all possible failure modes (e.g., network errors).

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 very long, exceeding typical length with multiple clauses on edge cases. While each sentence adds useful nuance, the verbosity could be trimmed: e.g., the piece about testing ambiguous cases could be shortened. The initial sentence clearly states the purpose, but the density may reduce readability.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers the expected return format, the meaning of zero, the non-existence ambiguity, and the parameter requirement. It doesn't discuss error handling beyond the no-player rejection or pagination (irrelevant). It is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity endpoint.

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?

Given schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the 'player' parameter indirectly as 'one account' and explains the no-player refusal. It doesn't detail the format or constraints (e.g., length, special characters), but the schema already specifies type and minLength. The description adds meaning by clarifying the parameter's role in identifying the account.

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 fetches a pending EVP claim figure for one account, specifically the GET /land/stake/evp/pending-claim response. It distinguishes itself from other land/stake tools by focusing on 'pending claim' and explicitly disclaims accumulation, comparison with DEC, or balance semantics. While it doesn't name a sibling alternative, the specific resource and endpoint make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage is for querying a specific pending EVP figure, and notes that a call with no parameters is refused (requires a player). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over related ones like land_stake_dec_overall or land_stake_dec_staked, nor does it provide explicit exclusions. The instructions are inferred from context rather than stated.

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