mmo_intelligent_farming

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 only says 'The AI compares ALL your games and tells you exactly where to farm for maximum ROI.' This hints at the behavior but lacks specifics about data sources, real-time updates, or authoritative backing. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 purpose, and wastes no words. The example immediately engages the user and clarifies usage. Every sentence 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 the tool has 7 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the main function and usage scenario well. It could be improved by describing the output format or limitations, but for a recommendation tool, it is largely 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% and all parameters have descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing parameters through an example, showing how player_games, time_minutes, and target value interact. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 an 'AI farming advisor' that compares all user games to recommend the best farming location for maximum ROI. The concrete example 'I have 2 hours, I play WoW and OSRS, I want to make 50k gold equivalent' makes the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from siblings like mmo_economy_dashboard (likely data-focused) and mmo_gold_conversion (currency exchange).

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 a clear scenario for when to use the tool: when you have constraints (time, target currency) and want cross-game advice. It implicitly tells the user to describe their situation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling tools are listed.

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