politics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it is only a noun phrase listing topics. It does not state that the tool returns data, whether it is read-only, or how the country parameter affects results, so behavioral transparency is limited to topic scope.

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 very short and contains no fluff, with the topical terms front-loaded. However, it is a sentence fragment with no verb or structural context, so it is more under-specified than properly concise.

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 tool is simple, but the description only identifies the general subject matter. It does not explain the action, the role of the optional country parameter, or how the result relates to the player context, so an agent cannot fully determine correct invocation from the description alone.

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 mention the country parameter at all. The parameter name and default 'player' offer some self-evident meaning, but the description adds no clarification about accepted values, formats, or what 'player' refers to.

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 lists concrete content areas (interest groups, bills, institutions, rulers/heirs), so an agent can infer this is a politics information look-up tool and distinguish it from economy, military, or other sibling domains. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' leaving the action implied rather than stated.

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 domain label and content list imply that this tool should be used when political information is needed, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over siblings like country, analyze_situation, or journal. There are no alternative recommendations or exclusion conditions.

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