get_reputation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly delivers: it explains TRUST's starting value, decay causes, slow regrowth, and immunity to war; defines THREAT; and details grievance expiry and its aggression-justification effect. It does not explicitly state 'read-only/no side effects,' but 'public dossier' plus the get_ verb make that reasonably clear.

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 dense but well-structured: a short framing line, labeled TRUST/THREAT/GRIEVANCES blocks, and a closing note about attached dossiers. The final sentence is somewhat tangential to invoking this tool, but the rest is information-dense without 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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the caller will receive; it does so for TRUST, THREAT, and GRIEVANCES with meaningful semantics. It leaves some exactness gaps—THREAT's scale, precise horizon values, and the formal return shape—but overall an agent can call this sensibly after reading it.

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 schema fully documents kingdom_id as 'UUID of the kingdom to look up,' and the description adds no parameter format or constraint information beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 kingdom's public dossier,' which clearly establishes the resource being inspected, and the detailed field definitions make the lookup intent obvious. However, it never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_kingdom_status or view_kingdom.

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 implies the data matters for war and diplomacy—grievances justify war, pacts carry dossiers—but it never explicitly states when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_kingdom_status or get_intelligence. There is no direct when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance.

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