get_kingdom_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing safety. It presents a read-only snapshot ('territories, buildings, budget, income') with no hint of side effects, which is reasonable and likely accurate, but it doesn't mention API key requirements, potential rate limits, or that the response could be large. Neutral and non-contradictory.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading the key returns right after the verb. Maximum information density for its length.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read snapshot, schema documents its single parameter, and sibling names clarify scope. Missing only explicit behavioral notes (caching, freshness of data) and an explicit read-only flag, which are minor given the simple nature of the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter (api_key) is self-explanatory, so the description doesn't need to add much. It provides no extra usage nuance for api_key, but given the single documented param, baseline 3 is fair.

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?

Clear verb ('Get'), resource ('your kingdom state'), and lists specific returns ('territories, buildings, budget, income'). Distinguishes from siblings like view_kingdom and get_wallet by summarizing a comprehensive status snapshot, so an agent can select it confidently.

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?

Implies a read-only status query but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over get_wallet, get_buildings_info, or get_inventory. No exclusions or alternatives given. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent.

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