PoE2 Item Price Lookup

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the data source ('poe.ninja'), mentions partial name matching, and notes that it returns 'chaos-equivalent values and trade volumes.' This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details on search behavior, parameters, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of 'matching items'), though the mention of 'chaos-equivalent values and trade volumes' provides some insight.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal extra semantics: it clarifies that 'name' supports partial matches and lists example categories, but this mostly repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Look up the current market price of an item in Path of Exile 2 from poe.ninja.' It specifies the verb ('look up'), resource ('market price of an item'), and source ('poe.ninja'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'poe2_currency_check' or 'poe2_wiki_search' which likely serve different functions.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Searches by partial name match across exchange categories...' and includes examples that illustrate when to use specific parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'poe2_currency_prices' for currency-specific queries.

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