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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the failure mode (oracle returns {'status': 'suspended'} with a reason), the freeze date that caused it, and the billing trait ('no charge'). It stops short of describing pricing when live or any rate limits.

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 suspension notice is correctly front-loaded before the evergreen description. Minor redundancy between 'top trading cards sorted by value' and 'Returns the highest-value cards', and the trailing game list is bulky but functionally useful.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the current suspended state, alternatives, and valid game inputs. What is missing is guidance for post-suspension use, such as cost or freshness of prices once the panel is restored.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value the schema lacks by enumerating the 13 valid game values, effectively supplying the enum that the schema omits, plus noting the value-sorted return semantics tied to 'limit'.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get a market overview') plus the returned artifact ('highest-value cards ... with current market prices and low buy-it-now prices'). The suspension banner is front-loaded and the live-function description follows. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_cards, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the agent away from this tool while suspended, naming three alternatives (get_sports_board, get_loan_terms_preview, get_census_summary) and noting they are live and uncharged. This is strong when-not guidance, but it never states when this tool should be chosen over search_cards or get_price once usable.

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