choose_free_great_person

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the state gate (ENDTURN_BLOCKING_FREE_ITEMS), but says nothing about what happens on an invalid unit value, whether the claim is irreversible, or any permission/error behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the gating condition. No filler, though the parenthetical example is slightly expendable.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the essential action, an argument format, and the critical precondition. Only the set of valid unit values and failure behavior are 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 0% for the single 'unit' parameter, so the description must compensate. It provides a format example (unit="UNIT_SCIENTIST"), which is genuinely useful, but does not enumerate valid values or point to where the list of claimable Great People can be found.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Claim a free Great Person'. It is distinguishable from siblings like free_great_person_options and choose_faith_great_person by the 'free' + Liberty-policy precondition, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Gives an explicit activation condition: only valid while turn_status shows ENDTURN_BLOCKING_FREE_ITEMS, with a concrete example (after completing Liberty). It does not, however, tell the agent to inspect free_great_person_options first or what to do when the state does not hold.

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