relic_drops

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 does add useful output behavior: refinement chances and optional relic farming locations. However, it does not disclose the data source, read-only nature, match semantics (whether all query parts must appear in one relic or any), or how vaulted relics are handled — meaningful gaps for a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 18-word sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Find which relics contain...'). Every clause earns its place: prime parts scope, refinement chances, and the optional farming locations. Zero waste or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values, which it partially does (relics, refinement chances, optional farming locations). However, it lacks clarity on how multiple queries are combined, whether vaulted relics are included, and the response structure. Given the moderate complexity (array input, boolean flag) and many overlapping sibling tools, a bit more context would round it out.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters (queries and show_relic_sources) are well-documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description adds marginal value by framing the overall output ('with refinement chances and optional relic farming locations'), which helps interpret the show_relic_sources flag, but it does not introduce new parameter-level detail.

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+resource pattern: 'Find which relics contain one or more specific prime parts' — unambiguously identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_drops (generic drop search), prime_vault_status (vaulting info), and baro_kiteer (void trader inventory) by focusing specifically on relic contents for prime parts.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to know which relics drop given prime parts, with refinement chances. However, there is no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., search_drops for non-relic drops, prime_vault_status for vaulting info). No exclusions or named alternatives are provided.

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