economy_rules

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

With no annotations, the description correctly indicates the tool is read-only and returns data (no destructive effects). It adds context about what specific constraints are returned, but does not detail response format or potential size. Given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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 short sentences: the first clearly states returned content, the second gives a use hint. No wasted words; front-loaded with essential information.

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?

The description is complete for a simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema. It lists the key categories. However, it could mention the output format (e.g., structured data vs. free text) for better agent understanding.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description logically adds no parameter info. The schema coverage is 100%, and the baseline for no params is 4. The description does not need to elaborate further.

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 clear verb ('Returns') and specifies the resource ('economy constraints'), listing concrete items like POOP delay, keeper cycle, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., buy_egg, get_balances) by being a read-only informational tool rather than an action or data retrieval tool.

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 phrase 'Read this before playing' provides explicit usage context, implying the tool is for initial learning or decision-making. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like game_guide, which might also be relevant.

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