Appraise a list of items

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that it returns per-item buy/sell unit prices, totals, volume, and unrecognized lines, which goes beyond the safety annotations.

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 dense sentences with no wasted wording. The core action and default market are front-loaded, followed by accepted input formats and return contents.

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 two-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the input formats, default market, and return shape. With annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, no critical agent-facing information appears missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds meaning by clarifying accepted free-form text formats and by naming the default location as Jita 4-4 beyond the schema's shorter 'jita' 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 uses a specific verb, "Values," and clearly identifies the resource as free-form item text, with concrete examples of accepted formats and a default market. An agent can distinguish this list-appraisal tool from general lookup or market-price tools.

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 it by listing supported inputs such as EFT fits and inventory/cargo paste, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like market_prices or item_info, nor does it name exclusions.

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