assess_loyalty_flip

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral depth by disclosing two failure modes: an explicit refusal on RULESET_STANDARD rather than a fabricated number, and inherent estimation bias because support pressure from other enemy cities cannot be fetched. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by the parameter hint and two clearly marked warnings. Every element earns its place, though the wording is slightly longer than necessary for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the ruleset gate and accuracy limits well. The only remaining gap is coordinate/name parameter meaning for a tool with a 0%-documented schema.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only explains one of four parameters — where city_population comes from (the city banner shown by your recon). city_x, city_y, and city_name get no semantic explanation, though coordinates and an optional name are largely self-evident.

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 specific verb and resource: whether an enemy city can be flipped by loyalty 'without spending a single unit'. That scope is unique among the siblings (assess_attack, suggest_siege_plan, get_power_balance), so an agent can route to it without comparing schemas.

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?

It states the prerequisite for use — the ruleset must have the loyalty mechanic (Rise & Fall) — and warns that the answer is optimistic when the target sits deep in enemy territory. It gives clear context for when to call, but does not name an alternative tool for the no-loyalty case beyond saying it will refuse.

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