get_alliances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: 'List' implies a non-mutating read, the leader-only constraint is disclosed, and the pointer to accept_join_request / reject_join_request makes clear that viewing requests is separate from acting on them. It could state read-only/no-state-change explicitly, and it does not cover error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the main list behavior, the optional variants, and the cross-reference to a related tool. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple listing tool with no output schema, it covers the main return fields, the optional detail mode, the leader-only requests mode, and how to follow up. It does not describe the exact response shape for the requests variant or failure cases, but those are minor given the low complexity.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between alliance_id and requests, the leader-only requirement, and how the output feeds request_join_alliance. These are meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every active alliance', and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also describes the optional detail and pending-requests variants, which distinguishes it clearly from mutation siblings like form_alliance, update_alliance, and accept_join_request.

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?

It gives explicit conditional usage: pass alliance_id for one alliance, and pass requests=true with alliance_id only as a leader. It also signals that this endpoint is the source of alliance_id for request_join_alliance. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool relative to siblings, but the main listing context is clear.

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