Quest trip planner

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the remaining burden is describing what the tool actually produces. The description does this: it discloses the inventory-fitting split and enumerates the categories returned (items per trip, later items, quest-obtained items, teleports).

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: the first front-loads the usage trigger, the second lists the outputs. No filler. It is compact and well-ordered, though the second sentence is a dense feature list rather than tightly prioritized information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does enumerate the result categories. For a read-only planning tool with fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete; only pagination/cursor behavior for long lists is left implicit.

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 name, cursor, player, and ironman are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it plans quest trips by splitting item needs into 28-slot-inventory-sized batches. The purpose is clear and distinguishable from the get_quest/get_quest_guide siblings, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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?

"Use when the player wants to know what to bring for a quest" gives a clear, explicit trigger for invoking the tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to the guide/quest siblings for plain requirement lookups.

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