Compare an item against currently equipped gear

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world safe. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it parses the item text, infers the matching slot, and pulls equipped data from GGG API or an active PoB / poe.ninja build. It does not describe failure modes or output shape, but the core behavior is 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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and input format, then adds source context in parentheticals. Every part earns its place with no 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?

The inputs and data sources are well covered, but there is no output schema and the description never states what the diff result looks like (stat comparison, text diff, upgrade recommendation). For an agent invoking this tool, the return contract is the main missing piece; the rest is adequately specified.

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 adds useful semantics beyond the schema by specifying exactly what 'itemText' means (Ctrl+C from game or trade site) and what 'equipped' is resolved against (GGG API, PoB, or poe.ninja build). This clarifies the most ambiguous parameter despite the schema already being documented.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: parse an item's full text and diff it against currently equipped gear. It also clarifies the matching-slot mechanism and distinct data sources, which sets it apart from siblings like find_trade_upgrades and get_inventory.

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 clear context for when to call the tool: when the user has item text pasted from the game or a trade site and wants a comparison against equipped gear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, though no exclusion is strictly needed given how specific the scenario is.

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