tibia_parse_loot

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

While annotations already flag this as read-only, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: prices are NPC prices with coins at face value, unresolved entries are returned, non-loot lines come back unparsed, and both result lists cap at 100 while totals still include everything. This gives the agent accurate expectations about output limits and edge cases with no contradiction to the 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 front-loaded with the core action and an example, then packs important caveats into compact sentences. Every sentence provides useful operational detail—input format, naming convention, price interpretation, unresolved entries, unparsed lines, and list limits—with no filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return types; it still covers the key behavioral details an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, such as input constraints, output limits, and price semantics. The description is complete for a read-only parser with these parameters and annotations.

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 schema already explains the 'text' and 'include_lines' parameters clearly. The description adds some context about output semantics (totals, unresolved entries, price type) but does not materially expand parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Parses loot messages'), includes a concrete example of the exact input format, and states key scoping rules ('in-game names, not wiki titles'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling search/find tools, which look up entities rather than parse raw game text.

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 makes it obvious this tool is for parsing raw loot messages as printed by the game, and the example plus the 'in-game names, not wiki titles' warning clarify the expected input source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route loot-message parsing here.

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