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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the filter condition but does not disclose whether this is a read-only lookup, how results are ordered, whether current price is included, or any other behavior. The output schema covers return shape, but behavioral traits beyond the filter are absent.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core filter is front-loaded. Every word earns its place; any under-specification is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there are no required parameters, which lowers complexity. However, with no annotations, no parameter guidance, and no usage context, the description is only minimally viable for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining game and limit, but it mentions neither. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory and have defaults, which keeps this above 1, but the description adds no meaning beyond 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 identifies the resource (cards) and a precise condition: all-time high in the last 7 days and still holding it. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling all_time_lows. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', so it stops 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like all_time_lows or movers. The only usage cue is inferential: use it when you want cards at all-time highs. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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