build_cargo_shopping_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the data-source chain (journals for coords/owned modules, Spansh for outfitting stations, EDSM as fallback) and warns that 'prices/stock rotate; verify at the station'. However it omits any mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if journals are absent.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by mechanism and a caveat. Little waste, though the middle sentence is dense with tool names that could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves parameters and the location/radius behavior unexplained. It is under-specified for its 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters (journal_dir, max_stations, search_radius_ly), and the description never names or explains them. It hints at 'your current location' and 'journals' but adds no actionable semantics for overriding the directory, station count, or radius.

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?

States a specific verb (build) and resource (cargo shopping list) and clarifies the output is an Anaconda max-cargo module list plus purchase locations near the player. It is distinguishable from siblings, though the 'Anaconda max-cargo' framing is jargon-heavy and assumes domain familiarity.

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 and no routing away from sibling tools like spansh_find_nearby_stations or inara_search_nearest, which overlap with the 'where to buy' function. The agent must infer usage purely from the purpose statement.

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