Find unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses case-insensitivity, matching against either field, the exact return fields (profession, age, stress level, etc.), the error condition ('no fort loaded'), and the linkage to unit_id for further lookups. No behavioral trait is left unclear.

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?

The description is four sentences long, but every sentence carries unique information: purpose, return contents, usage examples, next-step guidance, and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and stays dense without fluff.

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 compensates by enumerating all return fields and their semantics. It also covers error behavior and provides a clear path to deeper investigation, making it fully self-contained for this low-complexity tool.

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?

Although the schema describes the query parameter as 'Name fragment or profession to search for', the description adds critical semantics: case-insensitive, matches either field, and provides example queries. This significantly enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('citizens'), and specifies matching by name fragment or profession. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'citizen' by noting that deep dossiers require passing the unit_id to citizen().

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?

Explicit usage examples ('how is the chief medical dwarf' or 'find Urist') illustrate when to use this tool. It also provides an explicit alternative: use citizen() for a deep dossier, giving clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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