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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: the simulation is side-effect free on real game state. It leaves other traits unstated, such as whether the dry run requires authentication or a turn, and what 'roughly' implies about fidelity.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and followed by the key guarantee. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

It partially covers the outcome ('reports which would be rejected'), which compensates for the absent output schema, but with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested required parameter, the definition leaves too much unstated for a simulation tool with a token-vs-nation auth choice.

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 only 33% (only 'nation' is documented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The nested 'orders' object, which is required and is the whole point of the call, has neither schema description nor description text explaining its shape or format.

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 and resource: it plays orders against a copy of the live board and reports rejections. The phrase 'Nothing changes in the real war' functionally distinguishes it from the real submission path (submit_orders/give_orders), though it never names the sibling it is contrasted with.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight check to run before actually committing orders. There is no explicit 'use this before submit_orders' instruction, no stated prerequisites (e.g. must it be your turn?), and no exclusions.

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