rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false and a closed world; the description adds auth context ('no token needed'), the return medium (text), and a call-frequency hint ('once'). It doesn't describe the response size or structure, but it meaningfully extends the annotation profile.

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?

Three short sentences, tightly front-loaded: what it returns, then safety/auth, then when to call it. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value — it does so by enumerating the content categories and format (text). For a zero-param reference tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a bare call with no arguments. The reference to order fields concerns send_orders' schema rather than this tool's inputs, which is still useful context.

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 (Returns) and resource (the full rules of SECOND STRIKE) and enumerates the contents: war mechanics, the doomsday clock, and the order schema. It also explicitly ties itself to the sibling send_orders, so an agent can distinguish it from get_state or ladder.

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 an explicit trigger ('Call it once before your first war') and identifies its role as the reference for send_orders. It doesn't state when not to call it, but the 'once' framing implies it need not be repeated, making the guidance actionable.

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