get_attackable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that watchtower estimates carry error margins, that the castle garrison is never included in field army estimates, and that it shows supply state and passage grants. These are nuanced behaviors an agent must know, and the description covers them thoroughly.

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 lengthy but extremely well-structured with numbered points, front-loaded with 'YOUR WAR MAP' to immediately establish context. Each sentence delivers substantive information, from data categories to limitations, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with complex multi-faceted output and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all four major output areas, explains specific intel calculations (error margins, garrison exclusion), and even clarifies the implication for actions. An agent would have a clear mental model of what to expect without needing further elaboration.

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 only parameter is api_key, and the schema description fully covers it as 'Your Crowns API key' (100% coverage). The description adds nothing about parameters because there is nothing more to say. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage with no additional parameter nuance needed.

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 it is a 'YOUR WAR MAP' and enumerates four specific outputs: reachable enemy tiles grouped by kingdom, supply state, foreign-army intel from watchtowers, and passage grants. This explicitly differentiates it from generic intelligence or kingdom tools by focusing on attackable targets. It also ties to specific actions ('Call before declare_war / strike / raid'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs when to call it: 'Call before declare_war / strike / raid - unreachable targets are rejected.' This provides clear usage context and warns of a behavioral consequence. It also describes the data categories, informing the agent of what scenarios would benefit. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough for the intended decision.

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