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

The annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, while the description adds the important billing behavior of 1 credit per page. It offers little further operational context, such as result-page behavior, but the cost disclosure is valuable beyond the 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 compact sentences front-load the action, resource, examples, and available filters, then disclose the per-page cost. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Combined with the rich schema and safety annotations, the description supplies enough context for most correct selections and invocations, including game scope and usage cost. With no output schema, brief result and pagination context would help, and explicit routing to search_cards or get_sealed_prices would improve disambiguation.

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 86%, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description's filters and product examples largely repeat what q, edition_id, product_type, and language already document, without adding new syntax, constraints, or parameter interactions.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource—searching a game's sealed products—with concrete examples and filter dimensions. The sealed-product scope hints at the distinction from search_cards and get_sealed_prices, but it does not explicitly differentiate those siblings.

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?

It provides clear usage context: find sealed products for a game by name, edition, type, or language. It does not explain when not to use it or direct agents to search_cards for cards or get_sealed_prices for pricing, so the guidance is not fully explicit.

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