faith_great_person_options

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context by gating the call on a specific turn_status state, but it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what the response contains, or how it interacts with the follow-up choice action.

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?

A single sentence with the pre-condition front-loaded ahead of the payload. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 zero-argument option-list tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger and the content but omits the obvious next step — that these results feed choose_faith_great_person. An agent must infer the workflow from sibling names.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to document, and it correctly introduces no pseudo-arguments.

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: the Great People purchasable with faith right now. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than verb+resource, and it does not name the sibling it pairs with (choose_faith_great_person), but the intent is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition — call this only when turn_status reports ENDTURN_BLOCKING_FAITH_GREAT_PERSON — which is strong contextual guidance. It does not mention alternatives (choose_faith_great_person, free_great_person_options) or what to do when the flag is absent, so it stops short of a 5.

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