grailed_collections

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the output is a list of curated collections and the nature of the id field. However, it does not mention pagination, response format, or any potential limitations rats, which would be helpful for a list endpoint. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose and gives examples; the second explains differentiation and cross-tool integration. Everything earns its place, front-loaded with the core action.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys the essential context: what it returns, that it is curated (not search/facet), and how its output relates to another tool. Missing return structure is not critical given the simplicity, and the differentiation is covered. A perfect score would require explicit note on absence of filters or pagination.

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?

The tool has 0 parametersaire, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by noting that each collection's numeric id is used as the id parameter for another tool (grailed-collection), which aids an agent in chaining tools. No parameter details needed in description.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('Grailed's curated homepage collections'), provides concrete examples ('Trending: Apparel', 'Dark Luxury', 'Chromed Out'), and explicitly distinguishes this from 'a plain search or facet browse'. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

States the tool returns editorial/trending shelves distinct from search or facet browsing, which implies when to use it (when curated collections are needed rather than generic search results). It does not name a specific sibling tool like grailed_search, but the contrast is explicit and sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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