Bonifications/Maltreatments

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., response structure, error handling), relying solely on the annotated traits. No contradiction, but minimal value added.

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 concise with two sentences and a group label, front-loading the core purpose. However, the example request body appears to be copy-pasted and may not be valid, slightly reducing clarity.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the '9 categories' or how to interpret results, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify any of the 11 parameters. The example shows a 'chart' field, but no semantic meaning is provided for required or optional parameters, severely limiting usability.

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 states 'Planet conditions per Valens — 9 categories,' which specifies a verb ('provides') and resource ('planet conditions'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from many similar Hellenistic tools in the sibling list, missing a key opportunity to clarify its unique purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the tradition but fails to specify context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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