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

With no annotations, the description transparently reveals the tool's read-only nature (search and filter) and the data returned. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but those are not critical for this type of tool.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence covers purpose and filters, the second covers return values and alternative tool. Every word adds 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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return values. It mentions the key output fields and the alternative tool. However, it could be more complete by noting pagination or result limits, which are defined in the schema but not reiterated.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the filterable fields in the first sentence, but it does provide context on the return values, which is not parameter-specific. Hence, score remains at baseline.

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 action ('Search and filter'), the resource ('Counter-Strike 2 weapon skins'), and lists filterable attributes (name, weapon, rarity, collection, case). It also specifies what is returned (skin names, rarities, wear ranges, cheapest listing price in cents) and distinguishes from the sibling tool get_skin_detail.

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?

Explicitly directs to use get_skin_detail for single-skin details with per-wear prices, which helps the agent choose between tools. However, no further guidance on when not to use this tool or prerequisites, though it's sufficient for a search/filter operation.

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