Gear and jewel stat priorities

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: itemLevel causes each mod to show the best tier rollable at that level plus the end-game tier, and a defence baseline is always included with resistances always present. It does not mention pagination or output shape limits, but for a read-only lookup the added behavioral detail is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then progressively adds parameter guidance. It is dense rather than padded. The long slot enumeration is tedious but earns its place by supplying the valid string values that the schema does not enumerate.

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 and only 50% schema coverage, the description carries the burden well: it describes the return structure (ranked mods per slot, defence baseline), and the effect of the key optional parameters. The only notable gap is `perSlot`, whose purpose and default are never explained.

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 50%, so the description meaningfully compensates: it explains what `terms` mean (words from mod text, with many examples), what `avoid` does, what `defence` produces, the itemLevel tier behavior, and enumerates the valid slot names. Only `perSlot` (the result count, max 20) is left undocumented in both places.

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 specifically what is returned: for each gear slot and jewels, ranked random modifiers that the build scales, plus a defence baseline. The verb+resource is implicit (it computes/lists stat priorities) but the output is described concretely enough that an agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like evaluate_build, but the subject matter (per-slot mod priorities) is distinct.

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 usage guidance for parameters ('Use `avoid` to rule out mods, e.g. ["attack"] for a caster', 'Give `itemLevel` for leveling advice'), which implies when the tool is useful. However, there is no statement of when to choose this tool over siblings such as evaluate_build or optimize_build — selection guidance is left to inference.

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