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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing the response shape (names, rarities, wear ranges, cheapest listing price in cents). It does not mention rate limits or result caps, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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, both front-loaded: capability first, return values second, sibling disambiguation third. 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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by describing the return fields, and it covers the cross-sibling decision for this 10-parameter tool. Everything an agent needs to call and interpret it is present.

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%, so every parameter including enums and defaults is already documented. The description restates the facet categories (name, weapon, rarity, collection, case) without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource (search/filter CS2 weapon skins) and enumerates the filter facets that define its scope. It also names the sibling get_skin_detail and the exact condition that separates them, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 routes single-skin lookups to get_skin_detail with per-wear pricing as the distinguishing reason. It does not address when to prefer this over other browsing siblings (browse_cases, browse_collections, search_cosmetics), but the core use case is clear.

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