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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: results reflect the live resale market and are refreshed continuously. This goes well beyond the schema and helps an agent understand that data is current and time-sensitive. It does not discuss read-only safety or rate limits, but for a plain query tool the key behavior is covered.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first defines the tool's purpose precisely, the second adds the live/refresh behavior, and the third states when to use it. The most important information is 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core output semantics (discount and absolute saving), the real-time nature of the data, and a clear use case. The remaining parameters are already well covered in the schema. It could have included a concrete output example, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 86%, so the structured schema already documents most parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level semantic detail, though 'discount and absolute saving' indirectly clarifies the meaning of some sort options. It does not compensate further, but given the high schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (Roblox Limiteds), the selection condition (lowest resale listing below RAP), and the key result fields (discount and absolute saving). The 'live' and 'currently' wording further differentiates it from siblings like get_new_limiteds or search_items, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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 final sentence, 'Use it for what is underpriced right now,' provides an explicit intended use case, and the 'live resale market, refreshed continuously' framing tells an agent this is the right tool for current price anomalies. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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