Find free spots

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about ordering results nearest to a preferred point first, defaulting to the centre of the wall. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, or whether the search is exhaustive.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The essential scoping information and default behavior are stated immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a returned free position looks like and how limit affects the result set. It conveys the core search semantics but leaves return format and limit behavior ambiguous for an agent that must consume the response.

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 maps width_px/height_px to the button size and near_x_px/near_y_px to the preferred point with a centre default, which adds real semantic value. But it does not explain the limit parameter or clarify coordinate units and bounds beyond what the raw schema already shows.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pair: finding free positions that fit a given button size. It clearly describes a search operation for available placement locations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wall_status and create_checkout_link, though it does not explicitly contrast with quote_spot.

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 implies the tool is used to locate free placement spots, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no indication of when to choose this tool over quote_spot or get_wall_status.

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