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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them: 120-second per-filter-combination caching, that `price` is null when Steam has no listing, and that `total` is the filtered count.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the field enumeration is dense but earns its place by defining return values. Some field descriptions partially overlap the schema, but the block is efficient for a 19-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names essentially every returned field with its semantics, covering the burden annotations cannot. Combined with the caching and null-price caveats, nothing an agent needs to call 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 every one of the 19 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the semantic that filters combine with AND, which the schema cannot express, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Browse skins') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this is a paginated listing endpoint. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like search_skins or find_skin_deals, so the differentiation is by inference rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied ('Browse skins with the site's filters and sorts', 'Filters combine with AND') but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_skins, get_item_skins, or find_skin_deals. The caching and null-price notes are helpful context but not routing guidance.

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