Get gear-derived offense stats

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and open-world, covering the main safety profile. The description adds useful context about the sources and that the aggregation is gear-only, but it does not disclose limitations such as whether buffs, passives, or temporary modifiers are excluded, or what happens when no character/build is available.

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 sentence that front-loads the operation and lists the exact computed values, followed by source options in parentheses. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description gives enough for an agent to call it correctly and understand the scope of output. It does not describe the return format, but the listed aggregate values plus the absence of an output schema make the expected result reasonably inferable.

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%: the single optional characterName parameter is already documented in the schema, including its default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Aggregate') and a precise resource: weapon damage ranges, crit, attack speed, and gear-derived damage affixes from equipped gear. This clearly distinguishes it from defensive or passive-tree sibling tools like get_defenses, even without explicitly naming 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 description clearly implies this is the tool for offensive gear-derived stats and identifies the data sources (GGG API, PoB, poe.ninja), which gives an agent context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_defenses, so it stops short of a 5.

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