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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the paginated structure and that results include each skin's current cheapest listing price.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the price-threshold grouping, followed by the conditional slug behavior. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 single-parameter browse tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the shape of returned data. It does not mention result limits or pagination depth, a minor gap.

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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the omit-to-list-all behavior and gives inline examples rather than adding format or validation semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('find') and resource ('cheap Counter-Strike 2 skins') and clarifies the price-threshold page structure, which separates it from query-driven siblings like search_skins. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inference-based rather than stated.

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 explains the two operating modes (no slug = list pages, slug = return skins on that page), which is useful usage context. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over search_skins or the other browse_* tools, nor any prerequisites.

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