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 non-obvious behavior beyond that: all-missing defaults to heat relevance ranking, and a zero-match query returns a well-formed empty result rather than an error. Useful, but no pagination/rate context.

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?

One dense but well-ordered paragraph: purpose first, then parameter combination rules, then cross-tool value sources, then edge-case behavior. Slightly list-heavy re-enumeration of parameter names, but every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers what remains: default sort, parameter interaction, value sources, and empty-result handling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics on top: the AND combination logic, that q can mix with facets in one request, and the cross-tool provenance of accepted values (designer from grailed_designers; department/category/size/color from grailed_categories).

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 pair (search or browse) and resource (Grailed's peer-to-peer resale marketplace for currently-active listings). The scope word 'currently-active' alone distinguishes it from siblings like grailed_sold_listings, and it names grailed_designers/grailed_categories as facet sources.

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?

Clearly explains the AND combination of q + facets and that omitting all fields browses the full active catalog by heat ranking, which is genuine when/how guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not or alternative routing (e.g., grailed_suggest, grailed_similar_listings), so it does not reach 5.

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