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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It includes COAI certification indicating read-only, no automated actions, but lacks details on data freshness, pagination, or rate limits. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence captures the core functionality, and the second adds the COAI certification. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema, the description explains return fields (buyout prices, quantity, time remaining) and required parameter (realm). It covers the main aspects of a search tool, though it could detail the return structure more precisely.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It restates the filtering options but does not elaborate on parameter usage or edge cases, resulting in a baseline score.

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 searches the WoW auction house for items by name, category, or price range on a specific realm, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wow_price_history or wow_cross_realm_arbitrage. The verb 'search' and resource 'auction house' are specific, and the scope of filtering is defined.

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 implies usage for searching current auction listings but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like wow_market_snapshot or wow_price_history. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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

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 describes the return values (recipes, costs, margins, sell-through rates) but does not disclose data sources, latency, auth requirements, or error conditions (e.g., missing professions data). Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the entire description is efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and outputs but lacks details on output structure (no output schema) and calculation assumptions. For a tool with 6 parameters and moderate complexity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: analyze crafting profitability for a given profession and character, listing specific outputs (most profitable recipes, material costs, profit margins, sell-through rates). It is distinct from sibling tools like wow_auction_search or wow_farming_route_optimizer.

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 mentions a prerequisite (requires character professions data) and implies use for crafting profit analysis. It does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'detects' opportunities and 'returns profit calculations', implying it is a read-only analysis tool. However, it does not disclose whether it modifies any data, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. This is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 just two sentences, conveying the core functionality and return value without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficient in its use of words.

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 complexity of 5 parameters, 8 sibling tools, and no output schema, the description fails to explain the return format, error handling, or how to interpret the results. It only mentions 'profit calculations after estimated transfer costs', leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema already describes all parameters (80% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond naming 'source' and 'target' realms. It does not explain parameter relationships or provide examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Detect' and the specific resource 'cross-realm arbitrage opportunities', distinguishing it from sibling tools like wow_auction_search (general auction search) and wow_crafting_profit_analyzer (crafting profit). It also mentions the return of profit calculations, which further clarifies its purpose.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where this tool is appropriate, or when to avoid it. This omission leaves the agent without contextual direction.

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

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It does explain the output (zone, yield, path) and the manual nature, but behavioral traits like read-only or side effects are absent.

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 concise sentences front-load the core functionality and the critical limitation (manual gathering). No superfluous text.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output (zone, yield, path) and inputs (auction prices, level, profession). It differentiates from siblings, but could mention data recency or if results are cached.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds context about using auction prices and character level, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns an AI-optimized farming route with best zone, yield per hour, and path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like auction search or crafting profit analysis by focusing on route optimization.

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 explicitly notes that the player must manually gather, clarifying that this tool only provides intelligence, not automation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. 'Analytics' implies some computation but is vague.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and listing categories efficiently. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., format, metrics). Given the complexity of analytics, this is a significant gap. No prerequisites or performance hints are mentioned.

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 67% (realm and guild_name described, analysis_type only has enum). The description adds meaning by listing the analytics categories, which maps to most enum values, but does not explicitly explain each parameter.

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 provides analytics for guild rosters, listing specific categories like activity levels and raid readiness. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on economic tasks.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While sibling tools are economic, the description does not clarify when guild roster analytics is appropriate or provide any usage context.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'real-time' and returns output types, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or data freshness. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences front-loading action and output. No fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core function and outputs but omits prerequisites (e.g., character must exist), data source reliability, or how valuation_method affects results. Adequate but not complete.

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 33% (only realm and character have descriptions). The description adds meaning for include_bank and include_reagents via 'bags, bank, and reagent bank', but does not explain include_void_storage or valuation_method. It partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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: get real-time valuation of a character's bags, bank, and reagent bank. It specifies outputs: total net worth, item breakdown, and liquidation recommendations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auction search or crafting profit analyzer.

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 implies usage for inventory valuation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., auction search for market prices) or when not to use. No exclusions or context are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a search, but does not specify read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate for a basic search tool but lacks depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key capabilities. No extraneous words; every element serves a purpose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description could do more to explain how to effectively use the tool. It summarizes the output value but does not guide parameter usage or describe limits. Adequate for a simple search but not comprehensive.

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 50%, meaning three parameters are documented in schema. The description adds context about the kind of information returned (e.g., transmog potential), but does not provide per-parameter guidance or examples. It partially compensates but does not fully bridge the gap.

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 it is a 'Comprehensive WoW item database search' and lists specific attributes returned (stats, drop sources, crafting recipes, vendor prices, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wow_auction_search or wow_price_history, which focus on different aspects of WoW data.

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 implies usage for item discovery but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. The context of sibling names provides implicit differentiation, but no explicit guidance is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It partially does by listing the types of data returned (top movers, trending items, etc.), indicating it's a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss limitations (e.g., rate limits, real-time vs cached data) or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses an effective analogy. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and outputs for a simple tool with three parameters. However, the lack of an output schema means the description should specify the return format more precisely (e.g., array of objects, fields included). It is close to complete but could be slightly more explicit.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds a metaphor but no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get a complete market snapshot for a realm' and lists specific outputs like top movers, trending items, price spikes, volume anomalies. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., wow_auction_search, wow_price_history) by framing it as a broad market overview akin to a stock ticker.

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 implies usage via the metaphor 'like a stock market ticker for Azeroth', suggesting it's for quick, broad market insights. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for detailed item searches or price history) and does not mention when not to use it.

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

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 discloses the data source (MEOK Gaming Data Moat) and mentions output contents (averages, volume, volatility), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the tool is read-only. Moderately transparent.

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 two sentences (19 words), front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes supplementary detail about return types and data source. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (time-series with averages, volume, volatility) and the data source. It does not detail the return format further, but the schema covers parameters well. Slightly above adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter information beyond schema (e.g., hints at granularity via 'daily/hourly' but schema already has enum). No additional semantics for item_id vs item_name or days default.

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 action (retrieve), resource (historical price data for an item on a realm), and what is returned (time-series data with daily/hourly averages, volume trends, volatility metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wow_auction_search (current auctions) and wow_market_snapshot (snapshot).

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 implies usage for historical price data but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it provides 'optimal buy/sell timing recommendations' and 'real-money economy intelligence', indicating read-only analysis. However, lacks explicit statement about non-destructive behavior or permissions needed.

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?

Three concise sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose, then details. Every 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?

Moderate complexity (3 params, no nested objects). No output schema, but description mentions historical data, trend analysis, and recommendations, providing adequate expectations. Could detail return format, but still sufficient.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds no extra parameter details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents region, history_days, and include_forecast.

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?

Description clearly states the tool tracks WoW Token prices across all regions, with historical data and trend analysis. This distinguishes it from siblings like wow_price_history (general items) and wow_market_snapshot (snapshot). Specific verb 'Track' and resource 'WoW Token prices'.

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?

Description implies usage for WoW Token economy intelligence but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like wow_price_history or wow_market_snapshot. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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