fit_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that this is a read-only analysis, personalizes against the logged-in character, and falls back to listing all required skills when not logged in. No hidden side effects are implied.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and input format. Every clause adds valuable detail about the output and login-dependent behavior, with no filler.

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 the simple single-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers input format, processing behavior, output contents, and auth nuance. Minor edge-case details (e.g., malformed fit errors) are omitted, but they are not essential for typical use.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage for the single 'fit' parameter, including a format example. The description adds sourcing context (fitting sites, PyFA, in-game export) but does not materially change parameter semantics beyond schema.

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 input (EFT-format fit text) and the output (can-fly verdict with missing skills, training order, skillpoints, and days). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing EFT fit text as the input and the skill/training-focused result.

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 usage context is explicit: paste an EFT fit to get a verdict, with clear behavior for logged-in vs anonymous use. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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