Discover Candidate Money / Score / Level Value Paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value: it discloses the scan scope (LocalPlayer/leaderstats/PlayerGui/ReplicatedStorage/ReplicatedFirst), that no remotes are fired, the ranking heuristics, and the precondition "Requires: active-client". Minor redundancy between "Pure read", "Safety: read-only", and the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then scoring, then usage and constraints — every major sentence earns its place. Slightly bloated by the trailing meta-block (Phase/cost/idempotency/Produces/Safety) which partially duplicates the 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 supplies the return shape ({ path, class, name, value, score, reasons[] }), the failure path (inspect tool-schema), and a bounded-result contract, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly unspecified.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description explains the scoring dimensions (name keywords, container weight, kind, magnitude), which gives concrete meaning to what minScore filters on and why leaderstats candidates rank highest. extraRoots is only listed in the signature block, not further explained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: auto-discovering money/score/XP value paths, with exact scan roots and a keyword-based scoring method. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like find-string-in-tables, search-gc-value, scan-number-range, and read-path-value without opening any schema.

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?

"Use this as the first probe on any unfamiliar game" gives a clear when-to-use trigger and implies manual tree traversal as the alternative. However, no sibling tools are named as alternatives, so the routing is contextual rather than explicit.

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