find_local_opportunities

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it names the data source (live EDSM), the geographic scope (sphere around a system), and critically discloses that the return is aggregated buckets rather than actionable listings. It omits data-freshness caveats, rate limits, or how the buckets are ranked, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short paragraphs, the value proposition front-loaded in a single clause, and the critical caveat ('Buckets only') placed at the end where it reads as a next-step instruction. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 structure needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, data source, output granularity, and the follow-up path. Only the radius semantics and the zero-required-param 'defaults to my current location' behavior are left uncovered.

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 does clarify the system_name versus journal_dir choice ('around a system (or your journal location)'), which is the most ambiguous parameter interaction. However, radius_ly — the only non-null-defaulted knob — is never mentioned, so one of three parameters gains no meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource — a live EDSM sphere around a system or journal location grouped into money-making buckets (trade hubs, mission ports, exobio frontier). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from data-retrieval siblings like find_commodity and station_services by calling its output 'buckets only'.

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 closing sentence explicitly routes the agent to follow up with find_commodity or station_services before flying, which is clear alternative guidance for the next step. It doesn't state exclusion conditions (e.g. when a direct market query is better than a bucket scan), so it falls short of a full when/when-not pair.

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