crop_quality_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, restrictions, or behavior beyond the basic output. For example, it doesn't state that it reads from a save file or requires specific parameters to function correctly.

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 one sentence, very concise. It gets to the point but lacks structure. Could be improved with a brief explanation of output or use case, but it is not verbose.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output format, scale of percentages, or how factors like farming level or fertilizer affect results. The output schema likely provides structure, but the description should still contextualize the output for easy interpretation.

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples.

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 returns gold/silver/normal (and iridium with Deluxe) crop-quality percentages. It specifies the resource (crop-quality percentages) and implies a calculation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like animal_product_quality or animal_product_value, which are distinct but similar in style.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other quality tools or general calculators). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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