get_resource_hotspots

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape (counts plus nearest few per type) and the detection rule ('same OSM icon rules as the game'), but never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are cached or live, what happens when a type has no matches, or any cost/latency characteristics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical type list and the icon-rule clause both earn their place. Slightly dense, but nothing is redundant.

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 three optional, defaulted parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information (per-type counts and nearest entries) that an agent would otherwise lack. Only read-only/error behavior remains unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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% and the schema already documents defaults and bounds for types, radius, and per_type (including 'Search radius from HQ'). The description only restates the default type list and echoes 'nearest few' for per_type, adding essentially no semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('One-call scan of buildings carrying resource icons') and enumerates the exact POI categories covered, so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. get_loot_targets, get_map_buildings), so differentiation is left to 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?

'One-call scan' implicitly signals this is the batch/aggregate option rather than repeated single lookups, which is mild usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for narrower queries.

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