purchase_production

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that wonders are ineligible and that yield_type defaults to GOLD, but says nothing about what happens on insufficient funds, whether the purchase is immediate/permanent, or any turn-timing constraints.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by prerequisite and exclusion. No filler.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, exclusion, and the ambiguous parameters adequately for an agent to call it. It stops short of describing outcome behavior (e.g. instant completion, error on insufficient gold/faith), which is the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious params: item is illustrated with concrete examples and yield_type is given both its allowed values and default. Only city_id is left unaddressed, which is self-evident from the name.

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 verb ('Rush-buy') plus the resource being bought ('a unit or building') and the payment mechanism, with concrete item examples (UNIT_WARRIOR, BUILDING_MARKET). An agent can distinguish it from production-setting siblings like set_production or available_production immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to purchase_cost for price/affordability and gives a hard exclusion ('Wonders can never be purchased this way'). Clear context and a named alternative, though it doesn't cover edge cases like when faith vs gold is preferable or failure conditions.

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