Search and summarise assets

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 context beyond annotations: names and locations are resolved, values use CCP's universe average price, and ESI asset data may be cached for up to an hour.

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 compact and front-loaded: it identifies the resource, then mode behavior, then pricing and caching caveats. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the return shape per mode: per-location counts and values for summary, location and container path plus totals for search, and named/located ships for ships. It also covers data freshness and valuation source, leaving no major gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds value by explaining what each mode returns and how search/summary/ships differ, exceeding the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 states a specific resource (a character's assets) and concrete modes (summary, search, ships), making the tool's role clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_items or appraise, so it falls short of the top score.

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 mode descriptions give clear context for selecting summary, search, or ships, and the schema adds the default-mode rule. It does not state when not to use this tool or name sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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