Calculate Essence Upgrade Cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it uses authoritative per-star cost data and can optionally price with live Bazaar data. It also specifies the response behavior for invalid items. It lacks mention of rate limits or permissions, but for a read-only calculation tool, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second addresses edge cases. No superfluous information, making it efficient for an AI to parse.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return behavior for unrecognized items. It covers optional parameters and data sources. However, it does not describe the output format for successful cases, but for a cost calculator, the purpose is well-understood without full schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about using authoritative data and optional Bazaar pricing, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It provides a high-level overview but no additional parameter-level details.

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's purpose: computing essence, coin, and material costs for starring dungeon/crimson items by SkyBlock ID. It uses specific verbs like 'compute' and 'star up', and the resource is well-defined. This distinctively sets it apart from sibling tools like skyblock_auctions or skyblock_bazaar.

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 usage context: for upgrading items with stars, using authoritative cost data and optional Bazaar pricing. It explains behavior for unrecognized items (returns found=false with suggestions). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as skyblock_item for generic info, but the use case is fairly specific.

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