Evaluate a ship fit

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.