fanaticscollect_sold_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is credential-free and public from Fanatics Collect's own API, and that it covers every completed sale. However, it does not state read-only behavior, rate limits, pagination specifics, or any potential side effects. For a search tool this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, distinction from live search, and credential/source note with a cross-reference. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is searched (sales-history archive), the source (public API), and where to find valid enum values (GetCategories). It does not describe the return format or pagination details, but those are likely inferable or less critical for a search. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds a useful pointer to GetCategories for accepted category, grading-service, eye-appeal-grade, and sort values, which aids in using enum parameters. Beyond that, it adds little new meaning, so a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool searches Fanatics Collect sold items, and explicitly distinguishes it from the live search index by explaining it covers the sales-history archive across all marketplaces. It also names the alternate entry point ('View all sold items' link), making it unambiguous how this differs from sibling tools like fanaticscollect_search.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need historical sold data rather than current live listings. It contrasts with 'Search' and notes it is a separate product. It also directs the agent to GetCategories for valid enum values. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the distinction is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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