fanaticscollect_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a read-only search against a public index, requires no credentials, and searches Fanatics Collect's own public search index. It also discloses the scope ('full marketplace') and flags that category/grading/status/sort values come from GetCategories. It doesn't describe response shape, pagination behavior beyond the schema's page/per_page defaults, or rate limits, but for a public read/search tool the credential-free and public-index disclosure is meaningful and goes beyond what the schema shows.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the verb and scope, the second enumerates the filter dimensions, and the third reveals the credential-free public-data nature and routes to GetCategories for enum values. The most decision-relevant information (what it searches and how broadly) is front-loaded. There is no filler, no repetition of schema content, and no vague marketplace-speak.

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 search tool with 22 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual gaps an agent needs: the marketplace scope, the credential-free public-data access model, and where to find accepted enum values. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it doesn't mention how results will be returned or whether there are implicit behaviors such as default sorting or result count limits, but the schema already carries defaults for those, and no output schema exists for the description to explain. The pointer to GetCategories for accepted values is a strong completeness signal.

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 the schema already documents every parameter well, including enums and defaults. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that accepted category, grading-service, status, and sort values can be obtained from GetCategories, and by characterizing the search as free-text across title/brand/subject/set. It does not repeat per-parameter details, which is correct given the high schema coverage. The main contribution is pointing to GetCategories as the source of enum values and clarifying the marketplace scope that several parameters (marketplace, status, auction_urn) relate to.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pairing ('Search Fanatics Collect listings') and immediately distinguishes the scope: it covers the full marketplace spanning weekly auctions, premier auctions, and the fixed-price Buy Now marketplace. It enumerates the filter dimensions (free-text, category, grading service, price/year/grade range, listing status, sort) and names the data source (credential-free public data). This is specific enough to tell an agent exactly what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like fanaticscollect_auctions, fanaticscollect_categories, and fanaticscollect_listing.

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 states when to use this tool ('Searches Fanatics Collect's full marketplace') implicitly by listing what it covers, and it points the agent to GetCategories for accepted enum values. It explicitly notes that this is credential-free public data, which signals a key distinction from tools that may require authentication. While it does not name sibling tools as alternatives, the marketplace-scope phrasing ('full marketplace -- weekly auctions, premier auctions, and the fixed-price Buy Now marketplace') and the reference to GetCategories for canonical values provide clear context for when to use it versus adjacent tools.

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