farm_route_optimizer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it finds 'best' nodes and cross-references tables, but doesn't explain how 'best' is determined, whether it considers drop rates, enemy level, or node availability. The behavior is implied but not fully 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the key action. 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?

The description covers the core functionality and algorithm (cross-referencing). However, it doesn't describe the output format (e.g., list of nodes ranked by efficiency) or edge cases (no overlapping spots). Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly 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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that resources are cross-referenced with planet drop tables and dark sector bonuses, which adds context beyond the schema descriptions. The 'prefer_mission_type' parameter is implied by the mention of 'mission nodes'.

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 finds best mission nodes for farming multiple resources simultaneously, cross-referencing drop tables and dark sector bonuses. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_drops (single resource) or world_state.

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 when to use: when you need to farm multiple resources and want overlapping spots. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, but the context makes it clear this is for multi-resource optimization versus single-resource lookup. Lacks explicit alternatives but context is sufficient.

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