get_all_kingdoms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses ordering semantics (land held, not rank), payload width (tens of kilobytes), the pagination envelope (total, has_more), and a critical auth caveat that anonymous reads of unpublished tournaments silently return total=0, which mimics an empty world.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the pagination and alternative-tool guidance. Some phrasing is flavorful ('a fallen crown weighs 0 here exactly as it does at the gong'), which is decorative but does encode the points-weighting meaning, so it mostly 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and the pagination envelope. Auth behavior, ordering, and size characteristics are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema: limit defaults to the whole field, offset reads the next slice, and the response envelope carries total/has_more. The api_key visibility consequence is elaborated rather than merely restated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('View all kingdoms in the current tournament') and enumerates the returned fields (names, territory counts, status, net earnings, reputation, points). It also names its sibling get_leaderboard and explains the differentiator (ordering by land held, not rank), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 routes to the alternative tool: 'Use get_leaderboard with format="compact" when all you need is who stands where.' It also gives the operational condition for paging ('on a 200-crown field one page is tens of kilobytes, so page it').

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