baro_kiteer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation and notes 'current' status, which suggests real-time data. However, it does not disclose potential behavior like latency, errors, or whether any authentication is needed. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides an optional detail. There is no wasted text.

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?

For a simple, read-only lookup tool with 2 optional parameters, the description covers the key behavior: status, inventory, and worth analysis. It does not explain the exact output format, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the schema. The tool description adds value by mapping 'show_worth_analysis' to 'plat-per-ducat worth analysis', but this is a minor reinforcement beyond the schema's own description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource 'Baro Ki'Teer's current status, inventory' plus the optional 'plat-per-ducat worth analysis'. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like world_state or market_price_check.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer usage, but the description does not contrast with other tools that might also provide Baro-related information (e.g., world_state).

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