get_state

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the read-rate limit (2/sec), the recommended polling interval, that news already read drops out of later calls (explaining the idempotentHint=false), and that the payload carries the war result once the war is over. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 return contents, followed by the side effect and the polling instruction, with no filler sentences. The long enumeration of fields is dense but each item is load-bearing for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return shape and does so field by field, plus the war-over result case, the read-side side effect, and the polling cadence. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and use this tool correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single token parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its lifecycle ('stops working when that war ends or you leave'). The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns the war as your nation sees it') and enumerates the exact payload: status, clock, land, troops, gold, cities, pacts, neighbours, leaders, pact offers, news. This clearly separates it from siblings like send_orders, join_war, and leave_war, which mutate rather than read war state.

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?

Gives explicit operating guidance: 'Call it every 10 to 20 seconds (at most 2 a second), then decide your orders' – a clear usage cadence and workflow position. It does not name a competing alternative or say when not to call it, but the polling contract is unusually concrete for this dimension.

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