Nobles and administrators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses edge cases (off-map holders lacking unit_id, expected vacancies via superseded_by), additional data (bookkeeper precision, election state, monarch arrival), and error behavior (returns error if no fort is loaded). This is exemplary transparency.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it covers a complex set of roles, semantics, and practical use cases. Each clause adds value, and the opening sentence clearly states the core purpose. While a bulleted list could improve scannability, the content is appropriately sized for the tool's richness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must fully explain return values. It does this comprehensively: the structure of facts, the meaning of histfig_id and unit_id, the bookkeeper precision scale, pending elections, monarch arrival, and the error response. It also covers common misinterpretations (vacant superseded_by is normal). Complete for a zero-parameter informational 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing for the description to add at the parameter level. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools; the description's focus on output interpretation is more relevant and handled under other dimensions.

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 uses a specific verb ('reports'), identifies the resource ('the fort's appointed positions'), and enumerates the exact role hierarchy, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools. It goes beyond a simple label by describing what facts are returned and how to interpret them.

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 explicitly ties vacancies to concrete validation problems: 'work_order_create needs a manager, trade needs a broker, mandates_and_justice punishments need a hammerer.' This gives strong contextual cues for when to query this tool. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools by name, falling just short of a 5.

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