city_state_gifts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates the `ally` tooltip variants ({us}, {none, to_become_ally}, or a named current ally), explains `to_become_ally` as remaining influence, and discloses a negative behavior (other majors' influence is not returned). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what a bare schema provides.

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 purpose and the sibling alternative are front-loaded, and the remaining clauses are dedicated to explaining the return shape, which is warranted since there is no output schema. It is dense but each clause carries return-structure information rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: `ally` variants, per-tier `influence_after`/`makes_ally`, and the `short_by` fallback. The main gap is the undocumented player_id, but for the tool's return semantics the description is largely 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 0% and the single parameter `player_id` is never mentioned in the description. For a low-coverage schema the description should compensate, but it adds no meaning about what player_id is or how it is used, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 first sentence states the resource (gold gift tiers and friendship) and the target (a met city-state), and the second sentence disambiguates from the similarly-named sibling by routing the actual gifting action to minor_gold_gift. The verb is implicit (it is a query tool, not the gifting action), but the scope is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from minor_gold_gift.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative ('See minor_gold_gift to actually gift') and states the precondition that the city-state must be met. It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool versus the sibling, though it does not spell out a when-not-to-use case beyond that.

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