inspect_territory

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

Since no annotations are provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fog-of-war behavior (tier info only for own tile or tower coverage) and the type of information returned. However, it doesn't mention any side effects (e.g., whether this counts as an action that consumes resources or triggers notifications), response format details, or rate limits. It could also clarify whether this is a read-only operation.

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 a single, compact sentence which is efficient and front-loaded with the most important info (what is returned) followed by the hint 'The numbers a weak_point claim needs.' This hint is useful for decision-making. No fluff. It loses a point because the dense list of fields may be slightly hard to parse, but overall it's well-structured for an LLM.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema specified), the description covers what it returns, the conditional reveal logic, and its strategic purpose. It doesn't need to detail return structures since there's no output schema and the description lists fields. It could mention whether it's safe to call repeatedly without side effects, but for a read-inspection tool this is a minor gap. The main missing piece is explicit alternative routing.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already documents both api_key and polygon_id. The description adds the example format 't_04121' for polygon_id, which helps, but otherwise restates that a hex is being inspected. The description doesn't clarify api_key beyond 'Your Crowns API key', which is likely standard across all tools and already in the schema. Overall, borderline 3-4, but 3 as the description's param info is minimal extra value.

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 explicitly states the specific verb (inspect), the resource (one hex), and the full set of data returned: owner, buildings with tiers, effective income, recent strikes, and neighbours with owners. It also notes the fog-of-war reveal rules, which distinguishes this from generic territory lookup tools like get_neutral_territories or get_neighbors.

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 when to use this tool: when you need full details on a single hex for planning (e.g., weak_point claims). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like get_neighbors or get_buildings_info for cases where only neighbours or buildings are needed. This could confuse an agent deciding between detailed inspection and lighter lookup.

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