get_economy

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey substance about what is computed (shortfalls vs thresholds, idle construction jobs) and implies an aggregate read operation, but it says nothing about whether results are scoped to the agent's own colony, whether data is cached or expensive, or how the two sections are combined. Useful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary output (resource shortfalls) before the secondary (worksite staffing). No filler or repetition, though the parenthetical and 'versus' phrasing make it slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description must carry the return-content burden itself. It sketches the two data categories but leaves the shape of the response and the definition of 'development thresholds' implicit, which is adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% and the single boolean already documents its own default (true). The description's mention of worksite staffing loosely maps to include_worksites, but it never states that disabling it drops the worksite half of the response, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description names a specific content scope: resource shortfalls measured against development thresholds, plus worksite staffing (idle construction jobs), consolidated in a single call. That is concrete enough that an agent knows what data it yields. It stops short of distinguishing itself from related siblings such as get_resource_hotspots or get_recommendations, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The phrase 'in one call' hints that it bundles two analyses an agent might otherwise fetch separately, but the choice condition is left entirely to inference.

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