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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses exact return semantics for off-sale passes (is_for_sale:false and price_robux:null), cursor pagination capped at 100 per page, and the developer-products caveat to prevent misinterpreting empty results as tool failure. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but not bloated: four sentences cover purpose, resolution rules, return edge cases, pagination, and a common misinterpretation. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence 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?

This is a 5-parameter read tool with no required parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It covers how to resolve the experience, the meaning of null prices, pagination behavior, and the primary false-negative scenario. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningfully by stating that universe_id, place_id, and name are alternative resolvers and that exactly one must be passed, which the schema does not say. It also clarifies that pagination runs per page, supplementing the limit and cursor fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the game passes ... sold in a Roblox experience, with their exact Robux price.' It also defines what game passes are via examples (VIP, 2x Money), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from related experience/player tools.

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 explicitly explains how to target an experience: via universe_id, place_id, or name, and instructs the caller to pass exactly one. It also gives a 'when not to worry' signal by noting that many experiences sell developer products instead, so an empty or small result is a genuine answer. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools, so it is not a full 5.

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