Mandates and justice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses truncation behavior (*_truncated flags), the special handling of unbuilt restraints, and the error return when no fort is loaded. It also implies a read-only nature by describing it as a reporting tool, which is transparent for an agent.

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 dense but not bloated; each sentence contributes information about a different data category or behavior. It could be better structured with bullet points, but as a single paragraph it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the returned data types and edge cases, including truncation flags and the error case. It lacks a sample JSON structure, but the level of detail is sufficient for a complex tool, making it fairly complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description adds no parameter details since none exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly enumerates the tool's specific content: production mandates, export bans, unmet room demands, and justice state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nobles_and_administrators or petitions by naming unique data groups. Although the opening sentence is a noun phrase, the rest explicitly states what is reported.

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?

The description provides contextual guidance by stating what it does not cover ("not what to build about it") and where to find related info ("threshold restatements are in alerts"). It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough for the agent to decide when to invoke it.

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