view_kingdom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns public information, that the api_key is optional, and that including it adds a personalized relation block with stance, active war, pacts, and grievances. It stops short of describing error behavior or the exact response shape, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the optional api_key behavior explained efficiently using the 'ALSO' framing. There is no filler or redundant restating of the name or 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 simple 2-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the public scope, and the auth-dependent relation block. It does not mention failure modes or explicitly state what the public response omits without api_key, but no critical selection or invocation detail is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for api_key by explaining that it switches the response to include the kingdom's relation to the caller, and clarifies kingdom_id as selecting any kingdom. This extra context moves it above baseline.

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 specific verb and object ('View public info about any kingdom') and enumerates the included data: territories, status, and reputation (trust + threat). This makes it clear this is a broad, public kingdom-inspection tool and distinguishes it from narrowly-scoped siblings like get_kingdom_status or get_reputation.

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 a clear conditional: pass your api_key to ALSO get the relation block, so an agent knows when to include that parameter. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with overlapping siblings such as get_kingdom_status, but the context for general public lookup is clear enough.

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