project_price

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry behavioral context. It usefully discloses that low scores (1, 2, 3) result in no price movement and the tool should say so. However, it does not clarify side effects, read-only nature, or result shape beyond that edge case.

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 short and every sentence contributes information: one states the tool's subject matter and one provides the important low-score edge case. There is no redundant schema repetition or 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?

The input schema is small and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to fully document return values. Still, it relies on an external regulation reference (§12.3-§12.4) and does not fully state what movement looks like for scores outside 1-3, leaving part of the behavior implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for `round_points` by framing it as the player's score and explaining the 1-3 no-movement boundary. `player_id`, however, is still only described by its name and schema type.

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 conveys that the tool is related to a player's price/quote behavior for a given `round_points` score, but it never states an explicit action such as 'calculate', 'project', or 'returns'. The phrase 'a player's quote' is also slightly ambiguous, so the purpose is clear only after reading the tool name and context.

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 given for when to choose this tool over siblings or when to avoid it. The note about scores 1-3 being 'no movement' is an output/behavior caveat, not selection guidance.

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