get_country_wars

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the data source (war relationship field), snapshot-in-time semantics, and the interpretation trap of empty results. Return format and pagination are not described, but no output schema exists to cover that.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary capability front-loaded and the important caveat placed last. Every clause carries information.

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 five-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (war list plus active battles) and the limits of that data. It does not explain how country_id vs country_name are resolved or the default/limit behavior, though the schema covers those.

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%, so the schema already documents country_id, country_name, limit_battles, player_context, and include_active_battles with constraints. The description only indirectly hints at the battle-listing behavior and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Show') and two concrete resources (war relationships and active battles) scoped to a single country. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_battles and get_battle, which operate on battles rather than a country's war list.

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?

Explicitly frames when the tool applies ('current snapshot from the country's war relationship field') and when it does not ('not a war-history or treaty report'), plus a caveat that an empty result is not proof of no historical battles. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling for historical war data.

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