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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, and the description adds meaningful context on return shape and ordering. It doesn't discuss the limit/default behavior or any pagination concerns, but for a safe read tool this is solid extra detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering, with the optional narrowing and example queries following. Slightly verbose with two example phrasings, but each sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses that items carry community values and page links and are sorted most-valuable-first. Coverage of the limit/default behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap for a listing 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 all three parameters are already documented, including the MM2 section slugs. The description's section examples restate what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (list) and resource (most valuable items) with the ordering (most valuable first) and the returned fields (community values, page links). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_value (single item) and search_items (query-driven).

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?

Gives concrete use cases ("what are the most expensive knives in MM2", understanding a game's scale) and explains the optional section narrowing. It does not explicitly name when to prefer search_items or get_value instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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