league_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it declares the tool read-only, explains that greyed resolutions surface as `unavailable_enact`, and describes how `name` is normalized (icon tag stripped) versus what the screen draws. It adds no auth/rate-limit notes, but those are not applicable to a local status read.

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 'Read-only' scope is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries usable information (field names, formatting rule, project contents, sibling pointers). It is dense and slightly run-on around the icon-tag example, which is the one clause that could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does: `details`, `name`, `unavailable_enact`, `active_resolutions`, `active_effects`, and `projects` with the specific sub-values (percent complete, our production, hammers per reward tier). An agent can consume the result without guessing.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify or omit. No parameter-level meaning is needed.

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 a specific read of a named resource ('World Congress state') and immediately scopes what it contains (resolutions to propose between sessions, resolutions to vote on during a session). It names the sibling action tools (league_propose_enact/league_propose_repeal/league_cast_votes), so an agent can distinguish status from action without opening any schema.

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?

The description routes the agent to the correct action tools for proposing, repealing, and voting, and its 'between sessions' vs 'during a session' framing tells the agent when each resolution class is relevant. It stops short of an explicit 'call this before X' instruction or stating when not to use it, but the alternative routing is clear.

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