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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the 25-result cap, the exact fields returned, and a hard domain restriction (only six games supported), which prevents futile calls for unsupported titles.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then outputs, then coverage limits. Slight redundancy with the output schema in enumerating return fields, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 an existing output schema, the description needn't detail returns, yet it supplements with the game-coverage constraint and the ID-resolver role. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and route results to price tools.

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%, documenting game, limit (1-25), and query format, so the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the 25 cap and the product_id/group_id output meaning, but adds no syntax detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (cards/sealed products), and crucially explains the output's purpose: resolving a product_id or group_id needed by named sibling tools. An agent can distinguish this from card_price, price_history, and set_prices without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly says when to use it ('when the user names a trading card or sealed product and you need its product_id...') and names the downstream tools that consume the result. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'search' tool or state exclusions, leaving a small ambiguity.

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