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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal useful selection semantics: cards worth $5+, at all-time low, and down at least 50% from high. However, it does not mention defaults, ordering, pagination, or any other runtime behavior beyond the filter criteria.

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 tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase contributes to defining the tool's purpose and selection criteria.

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 description adequately conveys the core filter logic, and an output schema is present, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. However, with zero parameter documentation and no usage context, the overall definition is only minimally complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'game' or 'limit' parameters. It adds no meaning beyond what the bare input schema already shows, so an agent has no guidance on valid values or parameter behavior.

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 clearly identifies the resource as cards meeting specific all-time-low criteria, and its wording inherently distinguishes it from sibling all_time_highs. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns,' so it is more of a noun-phrase definition than a fully specified action.

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 criteria imply the tool should be used when the user wants cards at all-time lows that have fallen significantly from their highs. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like all_time_highs or movers, and no 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.