animal_product_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the comparison but does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, required permissions, or any side effects. For a calculation tool, this is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief usage hint.

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?

With 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is too abstract. It does not explain how parameters relate to each other or what the output represents. Despite the output schema, the description lacks completeness for a comparison tool.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the meaning of 'auto' for artisan/rancher, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema descriptions.

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 compares raw value (with Rancher and quality) vs processed value (with Artisan). It uses specific verbs and bonuses, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like 'animal_product_quality' or 'processing_value'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'processing_value' or 'crop_planner'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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