get_district_info

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that data is read live from GameInfo tables and therefore matches the installed ruleset/DLC rather than a static remembered table. It also implies no side effects and describes the kind of information returned.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a useful data-source caveat plus a pointer to the relevant sibling. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the content domain, the source/accuracy of the data, and how this tool relates to get_district_advisor.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on what the output describes rather than arguments.

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 statement of what the tool returns: base yields, adjacency rules, and prerequisites for districts. It also distinguishes itself from get_district_advisor by explaining that the advisor provides placement tiles and adjacency totals, so an agent can separate the two 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: use this for static district rules and pair it with get_district_advisor for placement and totals. It does not explicitly say 'use X when Y', but the contrast with the advisor makes the intended selection clear.

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