Wall status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for adding what the payload conceptually contains (occupancy plus pricing rules) and the wall geometry (1000×1000 px, 10×10 px blocks), which helps an agent interpret the numbers, though it doesn't state freshness guarantees beyond 'right now'.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary function front-loaded and the geometric context following as support. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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, the description must sketch returns, and it does: fullness and pricing rules plus the block sizing needed to interpret them. It could go further on pricing units/currency and the shape of the occupancy figure, but it is sufficient for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The geometry sentence usefully frames the units a caller will encounter in the response.

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 names a specific resource (The Button Wall) and states the two things returned: current fullness and pricing rules. This is clear enough to call correctly, but it doesn't differentiate the 'pricing rules' portion from the sibling quote_spot, leaving a small ambiguity an agent must resolve by inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is the orientation call to make before quoting or buying, but the description never says when to prefer it over find_free_spots or quote_spot. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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