processing_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions ranking methods and references multipliers, hinting at calculations. However, it does not detail how processing time, seed costs, or artisan profession are handled. The input schema lists relevant parameters (artisan, quality, base_price) but the description does not elaborate on their role.

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 efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and a key detail (multipliers). No redundant information, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. Could add a bit more context without bloating, but it's well-sized.

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 complete input schema and existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently explains the tool's function. It lacks explicit mention of output format, but that is covered by the output schema. Additional details about edge cases or prerequisites would be nice, but not essential.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context by explaining the ranking purpose and referring to multipliers, which complements the schema. It does not provide additional detail beyond the schema and the overall goal, so the added value is moderate.

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 it ranks ways to sell a crop, specifying raw (with Tiller + quality), keg (wine/juice), and jar (jelly/pickle). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'processing' and 'processing_planner' which likely focus on processing plans or general processing, not value comparison.

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 implies usage when you have a crop and want to compare selling methods, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or exclusions are provided, despite a large sibling list including tools like 'animal_product_value' and 'crop_quality_odds'.

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