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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return content, value-based sorting, and included price types, but does not mention whether data is live/cached, how invalid game names are handled, or any rate limits. Adequate but with meaningful gaps.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and returns content in the first two sentences. The game list is long but necessary for parameter semantics, and there is no filler or repetition. It earns its length.

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 straightforward read-only snapshot with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers core behavior, supported games, and price types. Minor omissions like error behavior and result ordering details are not critical given the output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete enumerated list of supported games, which the schema lacks, and clarifies that results are scoped to a specific game. The limit parameter's effect is implied by 'top trading cards' and is already fully described in 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?

The description clearly states the resource (market overview), the action (get), and the specific output: top trading cards sorted by value with market and buy-it-now prices. It distinguishes itself from price-lookup or search siblings by focusing on highest-value cards per game, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_price, search_cards, or get_sports_board. The only usage context is implied by the phrase 'market overview'; there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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