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 useful behavior beyond that: taxonomy size and as-of date, the empty-q full-listing behavior, and the default ordering ('most-listed designers first'). It omits pagination boundaries, though the schema partly covers those.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is, followed by the filter behavior. No redundant restatement of the schema, and every clause (count, date, ordering, empty-q semantics) carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. Combined with 100% schema coverage of the three parameters, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the taxonomy is, how q behaves, and the default ordering.

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 coverage is 100%, so q/page/limit are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description exceeds that by explaining the semantic effect of an empty q (full taxonomy, default ranking) and the ordering of results, which the schema's bare 'Free-text designer name filter' does not convey.

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 resource (Grailed's full designer/brand taxonomy) and immediately situates it relative to siblings by naming it as the value space that grailed_search and grailed_sold_listings' designer parameter accepts. An agent can tell what this returns and why it exists without opening the schema.

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 makes the use case clear by defining this as the enumeration backing other tools' designer parameter, so an agent knows to call it to resolve valid designer values. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or a preferred lookup order vs. guessing names, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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