patronize_great_person

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the purchase nature, required resource, and parameter sources, but omits potential side effects, irreversibility, or failure conditions, which is insufficient for full transparency.

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 three sentences, directly stating the action, listing arguments, and noting prerequisites. No fluff or repetition; each sentence 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?

Given the simple tool (2 params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to call it, and resource requirements. No gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: individual_id comes from get_great_people, and yield_type defaults to YIELD_GOLD with alternative YIELD_FAITH. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 buys a Great Person instantly with gold or faith, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recruit_great_person' by its action, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides prerequisites (cost from get_great_people, sufficient gold/faith) and references a sibling tool for cost info. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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