gift_unit_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains that the list is empty while a gift is in transit (in_transit.arrives_in, why_empty), that a city-state accepts only one gift at a time, and that the unit travels and delivers influence. It does not discuss read-only status or permissions, but for a query tool the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 description is front-loaded with the core resource and output figures, then adds the empty-state condition and the related gift_unit action. It is a single dense paragraph with some parenthetical nesting, but every sentence contributes useful information and there is little waste.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns: units with influence_gain and travel_turns, plus empty-list diagnostics like why_empty and in_transit.arrives_in. The main gap is the unexplained minor_id parameter, but otherwise it is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool.

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%, so the description must explain minor_id, but it never names or defines the parameter. The phrase 'this met city-state' gives a weak contextual hint that minor_id identifies the city-state, but it does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the resource: units currently giftable to a met city-state, including the button's influence_gain and travel_turns figures. It distinguishes from the sibling gift_unit by noting that gift_unit sends one. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' so it stops short of the highest clarity tier.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool shows gift options, and gift_unit is the action that sends one. The empty-list condition while a gift is in transit is helpful context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. A user must infer the workflow from the mention of gift_unit.

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