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 discloses that it checks 'recent' drops/restocks and returns 'in-stock matches with direct buy links.' However, it does not specify the time window for 'recent,' which shops are monitored, or any limitations (e.g., regional availability). This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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: the first states the action and result, the second provides the use case. It is front-loaded with key information, and every word adds value. Zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters, both fully described. The return type is indicated ('recent in-stock matches with direct buy links'). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers what the agent can expect. No further details are necessary for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both niche and query. The description adds practical examples ('Prismatic Evolutions', 'Millennium Falcon') that clarify the query format beyond the schema's generic 'Product name to match against recent drops.' This enhances usability.

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 states the tool checks for recent drops or restocks of a hobby item and returns matches with buy links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_recall (recalls) and find_settlements (settlements) by focusing on in-stock status for collectibles.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when an agent wants to find where a sold-out collectible is currently available,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for general price checks, which is covered by check_scalper_price), though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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