trade_catalog

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 so thoroughly. It discloses read-only status, that it does not construct or send deals, the exact contents returned (including special fields like last_copy, third_party.war/peace, vote_commitments, and peace gate details), and the happiness cost implication of exporting a last luxury copy. This is rich, specific behavioral context beyond what any structured field provides.

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 purpose, but the bulk is a single dense, parenthetical-laden sentence that is difficult to parse. Much of the detail is useful given the absence of an output schema, so it is not pure waste, but the structure and length reduce readability and conciseness.

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 complex, read-only catalog tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the tool's scope, return fields, special conditions, and sibling routing. The notable gap is the unexplained player_id parameter, which an agent must have in order to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the sole required parameter player_id is not mentioned or explained in the description. The phrase 'with this major civ' hints that player_id identifies the target civilization, but it does not state the parameter's name, expected format, or accepted values, leaving the agent to infer how to supply it.

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 specifies the resource and scope precisely: it catalogs everything that can go on a trade table with a major civ, enumerating gold, GPT, embassy, open borders, pacts, resources, cities, third-party war/peace, World Congress vote commitments, and peace gates. It distinguishes itself from city-state gifting via the explicit pointer to city_state_gifts. However, it lacks a direct action verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', relying on a noun phrase to convey the operation.

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 clearly states the tool is read-only and does not construct or send a deal, which implies when to use it versus deal-making tools. It also names the alternative for city-states (city_state_gifts). It stops short of explicitly naming propose_deal, negotiate_deal, or other major-civ deal construction tools as alternatives, but the read-only exclusion gives sufficient context.

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