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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the skill assumption ('Skills assumed All-5 unless overridden') and enumerates the computed categories, making the tool's behavior fairly transparent. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or error behavior, but 'Validate and compute' implies a non-mutating operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action and computed outputs are front-loaded, and the skill assumption and usage maxim are concise and valuable.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description gives a solid list of return-value categories and the key input assumption. It stops short of explaining how validation errors are surfaced or how module ordering affects output, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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. The description reinforces the overall purpose and mentions drones and skill overrides, but it does not add meaningful detail about individual parameters like chargeTypeId or accountType beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Validate and compute') with a clear resource ('a ship fit') and lists concrete outputs like CPU/powergrid, EHP, resistances, DPS, and capacitor. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eve_get_item or eve_search_items, which focus on item lookup rather than fit evaluation.

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 gives explicit context with 'Always call this instead of guessing numbers,' telling the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the instruction is strong and unambiguous for fit-stat computations.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'dump' and details the data categories returned. However, it does not mention error conditions, response size or latency, or any side effects. For a simple get operation this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 sentences with no waste: the first states purpose and content, the second gives usage timing. Information is front-loaded and easily scannable by an agent.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to use it, which is the essential context. It lacks explicit return-shape details and error handling, but those gaps are minor given the simplicity and the sibling context.

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 sola parameter typeId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never references it by name. The phrases 'one item type' and 'inspect candidates' imply the parameter is the ID of a search result, but format, requiredness, and mapping to candidates are left implicit. The self-explanatory name helps, but the description does not fully compensate.

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 'Full dogma attribute dump for one item type' as a specific action on a specific resource, and lists the returned content (fitting needs, slots, damages, resistances, skills required). It differentiates itself from siblings by noting 'after search' and 'one item type', separating it from search, fit evaluation, and pricing.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use after search to inspect candidates,' giving a clear workflow context relative to the search sibling. It implies this tool is for examining individual search results rather than evaluating or pricing fits, though it does not name those exclusions directly. This is sufficient for an agent to choose correctly in most cases.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: Jita 4-4 market scope, lowest sell/highest buy order selection, and a ~30 minute cache. It does not describe output format or edge cases, but the core operational behavior is transparent enough for a simple read-only price query.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the cache caveat, and a practical usage example. It is front-loaded with the core pricing behavior and avoids filler.

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 one-parameter pricing tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: the market location, the two price values, and the budget-checking use case. It could more explicitly describe the response shape or behavior for invalid/missing typeIds, but the essentials are present.

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 only parameter, typeIds, is mentioned as a 'list of typeIds,' but the description adds little beyond the schema's property name and type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more by explaining constraints like the 1-60 item limit or the meaning of a typeId. It is adequate but not richly informative.

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 specifies what the tool does: it retrieves Jita 4-4 market prices for a list of typeIds, distinguishing lowest sell order (buy cost) from highest buy order (sell value). This is specific enough to differentiate it from siblings like eve_get_item and eve_evaluate_fit.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Use totals to check a fit against a budget.' It implies the tool is for pricing lists of items in bulk, not for single-item lookup or search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is reasonably clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals substring matching and an English-only search constraint, but it does not mention result set shape, behavior on no matches, or read-only/side-effect status. It is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and quickly adding the critical output and language constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what is searched, how matches work, the language restriction, and the purpose of the return value. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it stops short of describing the exact response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'name substring' and 'English only', which aligns with the query parameter, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific action ('Find EVE Online items by name substring') and identifies the resource domain (ships, modules, rigs, charges, drones). It also explains the key output (typeId), which positions it well among siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 statement 'Returns typeId needed by the other eve_* tools' implies when to use this tool: when you need to resolve an item name to a typeId before using other eve_* tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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