Calculate Essence Upgrade Cost

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: Master Star items are not priced, unknown IDs yield found=false with suggestions, and star requests are effectively bounded by the dataset's max. It does not describe response shape or latency/caching behavior, keeping it short of 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core computation, followed by the optional pricing mode and the edge-case behavior. No filler and every clause carries distinct information.

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 appropriately discloses key return semantics (found=false plus suggestions, clamped stars, coin estimate). What remains thin is the exact shape of a successful result and how quantity interacts with per-star costs, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 itemId, toStar, fromStar, quantity, priceBasis, and priceWithBazaar are already documented with defaults, ranges, and an enum. The description reinforces the pricing concept (essence + materials, live Bazaar coin estimate) but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (compute) and resource (essence/coin/material cost of essence-funded stars) scoped to a SkyBlock item ID, with authoritative per-star data. An agent can distinguish this cost-calculation tool from siblings like skyblock_upgrade_advisor, skyblock_networth, or skyblock_item without opening any schema.

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 clear usage context: it prices optionally via live Bazaar, excludes Master Star items, and returns found=false with suggestions for non-upgradeable IDs. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative or stating when another cost/advice tool should be preferred instead.

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