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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the return format ('plain-text report') and that it is incremental via lastSeq, but says nothing about token/auth requirements, whether it is read-only, or rate/refresh constraints.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core resource and the `since` cursor are front-loaded before the relay instruction. The closing 'lead with betrayals, capitals and secret offers' is terse and earns its place as output-prioritization guidance.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essentials (format, cursor semantics, relay instruction) but leaves the required token parameter and any access constraints undocumented, so an agent still lacks pieces needed to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives real meaning for `since` ('a lastSeq from a previous briefing'), clarifying it is a cursor rather than an arbitrary number, but the required `token` parameter is left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('a plain-text report of your nation') and defines the scope via the `since` sequence number, which clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like list_nations or my_nation. It is slightly weakened by leading with a noun phrase ('A plain-text report...') rather than a verb, but the retrieval action is unambiguous.

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 implied through 'since (a lastSeq from a previous briefing)', which tells the agent this is an incremental poll used after a prior briefing, plus a directive on how to relay the result. However, it never explicitly says when to call it versus siblings such as my_nation or list_nations, and gives no exclusions.

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