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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: default relevance is Grailed's own 'heat' ranking, and a zero-match query returns a well-formed empty result rather than an error, which is valuable operational context beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope in the first sentence, then parameter behavior, then edge-case behavior. It is moderately long but each sentence carries distinct information; the tightest possible version would trim some of the value-source phrasing.

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 12-param, zero-coverage schema with an output schema present, the description covers filter semantics, facet value provenance, AND-combination, default ranking, and empty-result behavior. The main gap is pagination/sorting semantics (page, limit, sort), but return values needn't be explained given the output schema.

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 carries the burden. It enumerates nine of the twelve parameters, explains they combine as AND, and crucially names where designer and department/category/size/color values come from (grailed_designers.name, grailed_categories facets). It leaves page, sort, and limit semantics undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the 12 schema-only params.

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?

States a specific verb (search or browse) and resource (Grailed's peer-to-peer resale marketplace) with an explicit scope of 'currently-active listings.' An agent can immediately tell this is the listing search/browse tool, distinct from detail-oriented siblings like grailed_listing or grailed_seller.

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?

Explains that all filters are optional, combine as AND, and can be combined with free-text q or omitted entirely to browse by heat ranking. It points to grailed_designers and grailed_categories for valid facet values, giving strong operational context, though it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings like grailed_suggest or grailed_collection.

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