get_trade_options

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing what is shown (gold, resources, favor, open borders status, alliance eligibility). There is no contradiction with annotations, and it clearly indicates a safe read operation.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence, then efficiently covering the argument and usage. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.

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 tool with one simple parameter, a readOnly annotation, and an explicit output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, what it requires, and when to use it.

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 schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining the parameter's origin ('The player ID (from get_diplomacy output)'), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('See what both sides can trade') and analogizes to 'like opening the trade screen.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'propose_trade' by mentioning it should be used before that.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use before propose_trade') and where to get the required argument ('from get_diplomacy output'). However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the single sibling.

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