get_yield_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output (comparison table) but does not explicitly declare the operation as read-only, safe, or idempotent. Although the tool name suggests read-only, the absence of such affirmation or any mention of side effects or prerequisites leaves a gap for complex use cases.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Get') and the resource ('comparison table'), immediately conveying the tool's purpose. Every clause adds detail, and the structure is efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it describes the returned data (yields, cities, military strength) and scope (all civilizations). It lacks any mention of formatting, pagination, or performance, but for a basic data retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no params to describe). The description adds value by enumerating the data fields (yields, cities, military strength) beyond the empty schema, giving the agent a clear expectation of what the table contains. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and this description meets it.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'comparison table', clearly listing the included yields (science, culture, gold, faith per turn), cities, and military strength. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_civ_statistics or get_strategic_overview by focusing on a cross-civilization comparison of yields and military.

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 implies usage when a comparison of all civilizations' yields and military is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. Sibling tools like get_civ_statistics or get_strategic_overview may overlap, but no exclusions or references are given.

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