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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that prices are 'today' and grouped by kind, implying a read-only snapshot. However, it does not mention how the game or limit parameters affect results, nor any output ordering or formatting behaviors.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the key product scope is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity means it sacrifices useful detail that would make the structure more informative.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description plus schema provides enough to make a default call. But it lacks tool-selection context and parameter semantics, so an agent is not fully equipped to use it correctly across likely scenarios.

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 must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'game' or 'limit' at all, and 'by kind' refers to product type, not the game filter. An agent would have to guess what values game accepts or how limit interacts with the grouped results.

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 current prices for sealed product types (booster boxes, ETBs, bundles, packs, tins). This distinguishes it from card-focused tools like card_price and set_prices, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', 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 such as set_prices or card_price. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria beyond the product-scope hinted at by the phrase 'by kind.'

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