Trade and caravans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses error behavior ('returns error if no fort loaded', manifest_error/agreements_error for genuine bugs), and clarifies that manifest is before unloading. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effects, though it is implied by the reporting nature.

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 well-structured: it opens with an overview of the main report elements, then details each caravan's additional fields, explains error handling, and ends with the error return. No sentences are wasted; it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 fully takes on the job of explaining return values. It covers not only the top-level state but also nested manifest and agreement structures, their distinct taxonomies, and failure modes. This is complete enough for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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, and the schema reflects that with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies; the description need not add parameter semantics.

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 is highly specific, enumerating the exact aspects of trade status it reports (depot existence/accessibility, caravan lifecycle, broker status, staged goods, manifests, agreements). It uses a clear verb 'Reports' and resource 'the trade picture', and the 'not what to trade' line distinguishes it from advisory tools.

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 gives clear context on what data is available, and explicitly includes a when-not ('not what to trade') exclusion. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state explicit conditions like 'use this when you need current caravan state'.

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