Advise SkyBlock Upgrades

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds real behavioral context: per-upgrade confidence and caveats, budget-aware filtering, and an explicit honesty contract that unsupported sources are named rather than fabricated. It does not discuss failure modes or latency, but the gaps-instead-of-numbers disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core action ('Rank the gear and accessory upgrades') and every clause carries information, including the return shape and the honesty constraint. It is dense and comma-heavy with one very long sentence, but no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well: ranked action list, per-upgrade confidence and caveats, and a coverage block listing unsupported sources. Combined with 91% parameter coverage and 11 schema-documented params, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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 91%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining what the sources enum means operationally (star and accessory priced; reforge/enchant/hotm/pet reported unsupported) and by tying budgetCoins/priceBasis to the 'honestly costed' gating condition, which the schema does not convey on its own.

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 and resource ('Rank the gear and accessory upgrades available to a profile') and narrows the scope precisely to two upgrade classes: essence-star costs on equipped gear and next-tier accessory upgrades. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like skyblock_essence_costs (raw cost data) or skyblock_networth without opening a 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?

It clearly frames when the tool is applicable: only sources that can be 'honestly costed today,' with accessory prices requiring a configured lowest-BIN source. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., use skyblock_essence_costs for raw star costs) or state when-not-to-use, so routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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