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 does disclose the market source and PSA 10 floors, but it does not mention data availability, sorting guarantees, limit behavior, or any constraints. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the supported games list is concise and relevant. Every 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description defines the tool's scope and enumerates game options, which is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool. Minor gap: the limit parameter is not described, but its name and default make it inferable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by enumerating supported games for the game parameter (pokemon, one-piece, lorcana, riftbound, gundam), but it does not explain the limit parameter at all. The game values are helpful, but limit semantics are left to inference from the parameter name.

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 states a specific purpose: returning the most valuable cards for a supported game, with clear market source (raw near-mint TCGplayer) and additional PSA 10 floor data. It distinguishes from siblings like all_time_highs and all_time_lows by emphasizing 'right now' current 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?

Usage is implied by the description: use when you need the current most valuable cards for a game. There is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the 'right now' framing gives some context relative to historical siblings.

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