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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds meaningful behavior: there is no upstream price call, PCGS comps are not offered, and the live flag gates quoting sold prices or grades.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core status query and followed by the key exclusions and conditional rule. Every sentence adds distinct operational value.

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 a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is checked, what is not offered, and a critical downstream rule. It could be slightly stronger by naming the returned status fields, but the essential context is present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the empty schema requires no further description.

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 names the exact resources being checked (PSA cert lookup and the eBay-sold bridge) and frames the operation as a configuration/live-status query. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling data tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from attic_status.

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?

It gives a conditional usage rule: if live is false, do not quote sold prices or grades. That implies the tool should be checked before quoting comps, but it does not state when to prefer this over attic_status or other sibling status tools.

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