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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core non-mutating behavior (filter/sort) and adds an unusual cost trait ('Free while this deployment runs unmetered'). However, it does not disclose return shape, default limit, sort direction/fallback, or pagination behavior, which matter for a query tool with no output schema.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: function, usage guidance with a named alternative, and a cost disclosure. The core scoping statement is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a moderately complex tool (8 parameters, nested minStat object, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage routing, parameter mapping, and cost. The version requirement and cross-release data differences are already captured in the schema's version description, so the description need not repeat them. The only real gap is the return shape, which the agent must infer.

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 63%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds an intent-level mapping (category → category, weapon/armor type → subCategory, cost → maxCost, stat thresholds → minStat) that helps the agent pick the right filter combination, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema's per-parameter descriptions already provide.

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 ('Filters and sorts the equipment table') and enumerates the filter dimensions ('category, weapon/armor type, cost, and stat thresholds'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also differentiates itself from siblings like get_records (paging) and search (general lookup) without requiring schema inspection.

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 second sentence gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use this instead of paging through get_records when shopping for "best X under Y gil"'. This names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects this one, leaving no inference to the agent.

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