comc_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the aggregation behavior (each row is a distinct card+grade combination) and the chaining to a listing endpoint for per-seller breakdown, which is meaningful context beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but for a search tool this is implied; the added behavioral details justify a 4.

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 three succinct sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action and domain, result semantics and chaining, and parameter guidance. No filler or repetition; it is efficiently organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, 3 enums, 0 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: result structure, chaining, and parameter usage. It does not mention pagination or error conditions, but these are less critical for a search tool and partially covered by schema. The description adequately equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the optionality and interplay of category/query parameters, and clarifies the result structure. This exceeds the baseline by providing usage nuance not in the schema.

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 states the tool searches COMC card listings with a specific verb ('Search') and resource, and explains the domain (live consignment marketplace, graded/ungraded cards). It also describes the result structure (distinct card+grade rows) which helps the agent understand what to expect, going beyond a simple tautology.

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?

Provides guidance on parameter usage ('At least one of category or query is typically useful, but both are optional -- omitting both searches all categories') and hints at the follow-up action (chain a row's handle into the listing endpoint). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (comc_categories, comc_listing) or state when this tool should be preferred over them, so the guidance is incomplete.

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