land_volume

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 thoroughly. It discloses that figures are passed through unchanged, not converted, rounded, or combined; that wire types were observed as strings but are not guaranteed; and that wire-type changes would surface as malformed responses. It also warns against interpreting the figures as cumulative totals based on observed decreases.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes meaningful caveats about pass-through behavior and data reliability. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary behavioral warnings. It could be slightly tightened, but there is no filler.

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 parameterless pass-through endpoint with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return values (sum and count), the lack of parameters, the non-cumulative nature, the observed wire type, and the malformed-response behavior. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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?

The input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description states 'This route takes no parameters,' confirming the call signature explicitly. No further parameter meaning is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the two land volume figures the upstream returns for GET /land/volume: a sum and a count.' This precisely identifies the endpoint and what is returned. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by its unique route and no-parameter nature, rather than conflating it with market_volume or other land-related tools.

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 'This route takes no parameters,' which tells the agent how to call it, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when it would be inappropriate. The intended use is implied by the resource name and description, but no sibling comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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