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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states 'Browse' implying a read-only operation and 'active resale listings' indicating status filtering, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention pagination behavior, or describe the response format. For a read-only browse tool, this is adequate but not exceptionally transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It immediately states the action and resource, then enumerates filters concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 filterable browse tool with 7 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and primary filters. It doesn't mention return value structure or default sort, but the schema handles parameter details. Slightly more context about response contents would be nice, but it is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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 marginal value by naming 'category, tags, price range, and sort order' which maps to key parameters, but it omits 'search' and 'limit'. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the description's contribution is limited but non-redundant.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') with a clear resource ('active resale listings on the secondary marketplace'), and the scope is explicitly distinguished from similar tools like agentlux_browse (primary marketplace) and agentlux_resale_my_listings (personal listings). The filter capabilities are also listed.

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 implies when to use it (to browse public resale listings) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention that agentlux_resale_my_listings should be used for one's own listings or that agentlux_browse is for primary market listings, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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