evaluate_corp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses data sources (ESI + zKillboard), what the tool returns (signals, questions), and explicitly states limitations ('The API can't see recruitment status or culture — be honest about that'). This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it could mention whether auth is required or any other side effects.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. The first sentence is slightly dense with a list, but every part adds value. It is concise and structured clearly, though a bit packed.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains what the tool returns (signals and questions) and its limitations. For a query tool of this complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand scope and limitations, though it does not detail output format.

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 100%: corp_name is described as 'The full corporation name (not the ticker), exactly.' The description adds only 'exact name,' which reinforces but doesn't enrich beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 provides 'Newbie-friendliness signals for a corporation by exact name' and lists the specific data points (size, age, war exposure, recent activity) and sources (ESI + zKillboard). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_intel and recent_losses by focusing on corp evaluation for new players.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use it to sanity-check a corp before the player applies.' This tells when to use the tool, though it does not mention specific alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear and actionable.

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