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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that costs are hourly estimates, inputs must be bought at or below target float, and the response includes execution_notes with verification guidance. It also explains the free preview vs. authenticated full-recipe limitation, which goes beyond the basic schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds substantive context: the preview contents, cost/float caveats, and authentication requirements. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return values, limitations, and verification notes well. It could be slightly more explicit about default behavior or exact response shape, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'type' parameter with a clear enum and description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('free preview of the SkinGrind Trade Up scanner'), and enumerates what the preview includes: featured Trade Ups, active contracts, and locked teasers. This distinguishes it from siblings like browse_cases or get_case_roi_ranking, which focus on different data.

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 implies when to use the tool (to get a free preview of Trade Ups) and notes a limitation (full recipes require an authenticated account), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides context but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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