venture_house_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well on cost and freshness — '[FREE]', the house plays unpaid, one business day per hour, and the data is live and comes from the same engine a paying agent gets. What is missing is anything about read-only guarantees, rate limits, or how much history the day-by-day log covers.

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 core answer — what the house is doing — is front-loaded in the first sentence with a concrete field list. The second sentence is partly promotional ('so you can watch the game work before spending'), but it also delivers real facts about update cadence and data provenance, so it largely earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description does the necessary work of enumerating what comes back, which the schema cannot express. The gap is minor: it does not say how long the move log runs or whether it is truncated, which an agent might want to know before relying on it.

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 description spends its words on return content instead, which is the right allocation for a parameterless call.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a snapshot of what the house company is doing right now in Venture, enumerating the exact fields returned (city, sector, day, simulated cash, score, move log with reason and decision source). That distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like venture_market, venture_leaderboard and venture_play_terms without needing their schemas.

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 when to use it — observing the game before spending money — via 'so you can watch the game work before spending', which is a genuine usage cue. But it never names an alternative tool (e.g. venture_market or venture_play_terms) or states exclusions, so an agent must infer routing from the phrase alone.

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