get_relic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: not that this is a read-only lookup, what an invalid relic_id yields, or how omitting expansions resolves (the schema hints at game-context default but the description does not). Return format is also unexplained with no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is redundant and the identifying constraint (by ID) is stated immediately.

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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the return shape and error behavior unaddressed. It is adequate rather than complete.

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 both relic_id and expansions are fully documented in the schema, including the expansion enum options and the base-game default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (TI4 relic) scoped to a single item by ID, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_relics. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so sibling routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies you should reach for this only when you already have a relic identifier, as opposed to browsing with list_relics. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion guidance, and no mention of how the expansions parameter should influence the call.

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