get_trade_options

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description confirms by saying 'See what both sides can trade'. The description adds value by specifying the types of information shown (gold, resources, etc.), which is not in annotations. No contradictions; all behavioral traits disclosed are consistent.

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?

Four short sentences plus an Args line, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy. The structure is logical: purpose, argument, return details, usage hint.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter nature and existence of an output schema, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, what it shows, how to use it. It's complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional information.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully explains the parameter's meaning and source ('The player ID (from get_diplomacy output)'). This compensates for the schema gap and adds critical context for the agent.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows available trade options between player and another civilization, listing specific categories (gold, resources, etc.). It uses a vivid analogy ('like opening the trade screen') and distinguishes from propose_trade. The verb 'See' and resource 'trade options' are precise.

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?

Explicitly says to use before propose_trade and tells where to get other_player_id (from get_diplomacy output). It implies the tool is a prerequisite for proposing trades. While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear and it differentiates from sibling tools like get_trade_routes.

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