available_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the payload semantics (current marker, nonzero progress, what unlocks covers, and the important 'our units and buildings, not another civ's uniques' scoping). It never states the operation is read-only or side-effect free, which for an unannotated tool is a real gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by compact field explanations. It is dense with domain jargon ('seat', 'button row', 'embark, ocean, embassy') but every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully doubles as documentation of the returned fields. For a zero-parameter listing tool this is close to complete, though it could note that calling it has no side effects.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 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 states a specific resource and scope: 'Techs I can research right now (prereqs met).' It makes clear this is a filtered availability listing rather than the full tech tree, though it never names the siblings (tech_tree, set_research, available_production) it should be distinguished from.

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?

'prereqs met' and 'right now' imply the condition for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives like tech_tree or set_research. The agent must infer that this is the option-enumeration step before choosing research.

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