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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the time-window range (1 to 90 days), the game scope, and the $5 card price cutoff. However, it does not mention ordering, whether gainers and losers are returned together, or how the limit parameter affects results.

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?

A single sentence delivers the essential scope, time bounds, and price filter without wasted words. The most important qualifiers are front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and only three simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. The main gaps are the missing limit semantics and lack of usage differentiation from adjacent siblings, but the tool's core behavior is understandable.

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 for all parameters. It explains 'days' with a range and implies 'game' through context, but it does not explain 'limit' at all, leaving one of three parameters semantically undefined.

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 identifies the resource as price movers for a game, with a specific time window and price threshold. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as all_time_highs or all_time_lows, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like all_time_highs, all_time_lows, or price_history. The description implies a use case but does not provide conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing.

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