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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying affiliate-wrapped link behavior and alternate handling for ambiguous names, with no contradictions.

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 concise with two efficient sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds return details and edge-case handling (alternates). No waste.

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 3 params, 100% schema coverage, and informative annotations, the description covers main use, scope, and return behavior. It lacks explicit info on no-match cases or exact output structure, but is largely complete for its simplicity.

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%, providing all parameter details. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 looks up the current market price of a single TCG card across 22+ games, specifies it returns the best match's price and an affiliate link with alternates, and distinguishes itself from siblings (list_printings, price_deck) by focusing on single card price lookup.

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 implicitly guides usage for single card price queries and mentions alternates for ambiguous names, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., when to use price_deck for decks) or state when not to use this tool.

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