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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no permissions or resources required to found an alliance, no cost, no irreversibility, no effect on existing alliance membership, and no response shape. The only hint of mutation is the verb 'found' and the POST endpoint reference.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than editorial discipline; the one sentence present conveys no information beyond the tool name and an API route.

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 state-mutating game action with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain eligibility, cost, and effects. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call this correctly without guessing.

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 0% across two parameters. The description says nothing about city_id (required) or idempotency_key, which is exactly the parameter that needs explanation — whether retries with the same key are safe, and what value format is expected.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus an equivalent REST endpoint reference ('identical to POST /api/found_alliance'). It never states in plain terms that this creates a new alliance, nor does it distinguish the action from sibling tools like join_alliance or get_alliance.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The presence of join_alliance and get_alliance among siblings makes the missing differentiation especially costly, since an agent cannot tell founding from joining an existing alliance from this text.

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