describe_world

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states a read-only action ('Return a narrative description') and does not contradict any annotations. It could add more context (e.g., that it reflects the current world state set by set_world), but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Return a narrative description') and packs essential information (current world, data availability, query guidance) without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 (0 parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete. It tells the user enough to understand what they will get (narrative description, data overview, query instructions) and is contextually sufficient for a meta-level tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but that is not needed here. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's function: returning a narrative description of the current world, including available data and query methods. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_accommodations and set_world by being the meta-level tool for understanding the world state, using the specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource.

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 implicitly indicates usage: the user should call this tool to learn about the world and how to query it before using specific find_* or set_world tools. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this first' or provide alternatives/exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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