free_great_person_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the data is only meaningful under one turn_status value, but doesn't say whether the call is read-only, what happens if called when the flag isn't set, or the shape of the result (no output schema). Its one behavioral clue is the activation precondition.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the activation condition. It is efficient but the middle clause ('how many free Great People are owed and which unit types... qualify') is awkwardly phrased as an outcome rather than a purpose statement.

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-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description states the trigger and the content delivered, but says nothing about its own read-only nature, what the result looks like, or which sibling tool consumes the answer. A follow-on pointer (e.g., 'call choose_free_great_person to select one') 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to document any inputs, and it stays silent on none because there are none.

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 that the tool reports the number of free Great People owed and their unit types. However, the phrasing 'how many... and which unit types... qualify' is reader-facing query language, not really a verb+resource declaration, and it's tied to a turn_status flag rather than stating the tool's own purpose. It does distinguish itself from sibling 'choose_free_great_person' implicitly (this reports, that selects), but doesn't say so.

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 a clear triggering condition: 'When turn_status shows ENDTURN_BLOCKING_FREE_ITEMS.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It doesn't name what to do next (e.g., use choose_free_great_person), and doesn't say what to do when the flag is absent, so it's not a full 5.

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