isk_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It honestly discloses that ISK/hour ranges are 'rough community consensus, not live data' and warns never to present them as guarantees. It also clarifies the tool's scope by mentioning the skillpoint tier tiers and what each entry includes (range, requirements, first step), which sets appropriate expectations for the user.

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 three sentences with no fluff: the first sentence covers content and structure, the second gives usage context and policy guidance, and the third provides a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place, making it compact yet highly informative.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns (ISK/hour ranges, requirements, first step), how to use it (by skillpoint tier), and important limitations (non-guaranteed estimates). It is complete for a guidance tool with no parameters, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so there are no parameter descriptions to enhance. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description compensates by explaining that the tool uses the player's skillpoint tier (likely from context), making the input behavior clear without needing explicit parameters.

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: providing viable ways to make ISK matched to skillpoint tiers, with honest ISK/hour ranges, requirements, and first steps. It explicitly says to use it to answer 'how do I make money?' and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on income generation rather than items, intel, fits, or other activities.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to answer 'how do I make money?' for someone's actual stage,' which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also provides directional advice (point new players at high-ratio activities like exploration over mining, and away from grinds that only pay at high skillpoints). It does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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