lookup_item

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the return content (description and Jita market prices) and the exact-name matching requirement. However, it does not mention error behavior, case sensitivity, or price details (e.g., buy/sell, update timing), which limits transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, scope, and return value without redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: what the tool does, what input is needed, and what is returned. It could be more explicit about the nature of market prices (e.g., buy/sell, current/regional), but for a basic item lookup this is adequate.

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 already documents the `name` parameter with examples ('Rifter', 'Damage Control II') and indicates exactness. The description merely repeats 'exact name' and adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description states a clear action ('Look up') and resource ('any EVE item, ship, or module'), and specifies the return value (description and Jita market prices). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `where_to_buy`, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description solely states what it does without any context for selection, exclusion, or relation to sibling tools. The requirement for an 'exact name' is the closest hint to usage, but it is not framed as guidance.

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