reveal

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: auto-approves one-time allowance, submits on-chain transaction, waits for confirmation, reports tx hash, and explains that resources are applied later by indexer. No contradictions with missing 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?

The description is concise with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds essential value, from prerequisites to post-action steps.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (on-chain transaction, cost, indexer latency), the description covers all necessary aspects: authentication requirement, cost behavior, transaction flow, and how to read results. No output schema is needed as the description tells the agent what to expect.

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 100% for the single parameter tokenId, with a clear description 'The tokenId of a cell you own to reveal.' The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Reveal the resource deposits of a Land cell you own.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings, as no other sibling tool performs a similar action.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (require session, call authenticate), cost rules (first free, re-reveal has CPU cost), and post-action steps (read with get_cell). It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives (none needed).

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