Compare build options side by side

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), but the description goes well beyond: it enumerates the per-variant output (damage, kill times, survival, life/ES, resistances, attribute shortfalls, verdicts), the delta against the first variant, best-for-clearing/bossing/survival verdicts, the 2-4 variant bound, and a platform limitation (Windows only for now). That is substantive context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that leads with the verb and scope; the e.g. list of comparison scenarios is slightly long but each example adds discriminative value. The return-value and platform notes are compact and earn their 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?

For a tool with a very large nested schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value picture (per-variant metrics, deltas, best-for verdicts) as well as the variant count bound and platform constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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?

Top-level schema coverage for the single 'variants' parameter is reported as 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does so by explaining that each variant is a full build with the same fields as evaluate_build plus a label, and that variants usually differ only in a few areas. It stops short of explaining the 'label' semantics used in the per-variant output comparison, but the nested field descriptions fill most remaining gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (calculate variants and compare) plus the resource (builds), and explicitly anchors the variant format to evaluate_build, so an agent can distinguish it from the single-build sibling without opening either schema. The named use cases (two-handed vs one-handed, two ascendancies, with/without a key unique) make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for use (comparing 2-4 variants that share most fields and differ in weapons/items/passives/skills/ascendancy) and implies the alternative by referencing evaluate_build's fields. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. use evaluate_build for a single build), so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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