farm_route_optimizer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the internal mechanism (cross-referencing drop tables and dark sector bonuses), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose limitations such as whether the tool considers current game rotations or returns live data, nor does it mention the output format.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes meaning. It avoids redundancy and directly conveys the tool's functionality without fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description gives enough context about what the tool does and how it works to guide invocation. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the phrase 'find mission nodes' implies the output. A fully complete description might add an example or clarify the output format.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (resources and prefer_mission_type) with 100% coverage. The description adds only minimal context on how parameters relate to the tool's purpose, but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('mission nodes'), and a clear objective ('farm multiple resources simultaneously'). It also mentions the method (cross-references drop tables and dark sector bonuses), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_drops or relic_drops that likely focus on single-resource lookup.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when needing to farm multiple resources at once. It clearly orients the agent toward the multi-resource optimization use case, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for single-resource needs.

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