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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does valuable work by disclosing the aggregation model (one row per product, cheapest active listing plus last known market price) and the unit convention (euro cents), but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, empty-result handling, or any auth/rate constraints on a 16-parameter search.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the currency convention stated immediately after the return semantics. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 16-parameter, annotation-free search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the shape of the returned price data but omits pagination limits, how the 16 filters combine, and what fields each result carries. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 81%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including the sort semantics and price units. The description's euro-cents clarification largely duplicates what max_price/min_price already state, so baseline 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 and resource ('Search for trading cards and sealed products on Cardpeer') and even describes the result shape (one result per product with cheapest active listing price and last known price). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_listings, which likely overlaps heavily, so an agent must guess which search to use.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The description never says how this differs from search_listings or why an agent would pick it over get_product for a single item, leaving selection to inference.

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