statements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals read-only, public-access behavior ('Read public statements', 'public record') and adds a useful interpretive caveat: statements reveal posture, not truth, because kingdoms bluff. It could additionally state the absence of side effects or rate limits, but for a public read tool this is strong.

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 focused sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical examples are illustrative rather than filler, and the final warning about bluffing is concise and valuable. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 no output schema and six documented parameters, the description covers the core behavior, the two main filters, and how to interpret results. The only real gap is that it does not describe the response object shape, but 'statements' as the resource makes the return type inferable, so this is a minor omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds strategic meaning beyond the schema for kingdom_id and target_kingdom_id by tying them to scouting rivals and hearing threats. That lifts it above baseline; the remaining parameters are already well explained by the schema.

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 first sentence names the exact operation and resource: 'Read public statements'. It also distinguishes this from the sibling post_statement tool by emphasizing that the data is a public record, and it concretely differentiates the two kingdom-related filters. An agent can tell at a glance that this is a read-only lookup of declared stances.

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 gives clear, decision-ready usage context: use kingdom_id to scout a rival before allying or attacking, and target_kingdom_id to see what has been said about a kingdom. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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