available_spy_cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it explains the meaning of the returned `potential` field in both directions (stealable vs exposed) and discloses the 'unknown' state until a spy has surveilled the city. It does not mention turn-timing rules beyond 'right now' or any failure modes, keeping it short of 5.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence, while long, is entirely about return-value semantics rather than filler. It is dense but almost every clause earns its place.

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 1-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it conveys what comes back, what the key field means, and which tool consumes the result. A brief note on freshness/turn scope would make it 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 0% and there is one required param, so the description must compensate; it does by identifying agent_id as a spy id sourced from spies(). It does not state the id's type/range or error behavior on an invalid id, so not a 5.

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+resource: which cities a given spy could be sent to right now, and splits them into two actionable categories (own cities for counter-intel, foreign for steal tech/coup). It also names the sibling it feeds (move_spy), which lets an agent distinguish it from move_spy, spies, and stage_coup without opening schemas.

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?

'Cities ... could be sent to right now' plus 'Feeds move_spy' clearly establishes the context and the downstream call, and '(agent_id, from spies())' points to the prerequisite tool. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives to compare against, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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