culture_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields (level exotic..dominant, percent, tourism per turn, trend, turns_to_influential while rising) and an important edge case -- unmet civs appear as 'unknown'. It does not state that this is a side-effect-free read or note any performance/rate concerns, which keeps it from a 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?

Purpose and returned contents are front-loaded, then the usage trigger closes it out; there is no filler. The middle enumeration is dense but every clause adds distinct information about the screen's contents.

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 and zero parameters, the description must describe the return payload itself, and it does so in detail -- including field semantics, the exotic-to-dominant scale, and the 'unknown' case for unmet civs. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

Names the specific screen (Culture Overview) and the exact resource it reports: per met major civ, count of civs Influential on, tourism, and influence on every other major civ. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like domination_progress, wonder_overview, and demographics.

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 trigger condition -- 'Use it when a "Culture Victory Contender" alert names a rival' -- which is concrete and actionable. It does not name a competing tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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