opensea_search_collections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that the tool 'runs a keyword search across OpenSea collections and returns the matches with floor price, verification flag, and headline stats,' which gives a clear picture of its read-only, search-like behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting defaults, or any potential rate limits. For a simple search this is adequate, and it does not contradict any structured data.

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 long, with minimal fluff, and opens with the core action. There is slight redundancy between the first sentence ('Search OpenSea collections by keyword') and the second ('Runs a keyword search across OpenSea collections'), but the second adds the valuable output details. Overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool is a simple two-parameter search with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies what names to pass and what output shape is expected (floor price, verification flag, headline stats). It does not describe the full result object, but without an output schema, this is an acceptable level of detail for the agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the raw fields: it clarifies that the `query` parameter is a human-readable collection name used to resolve to a slug, which the bare schema description does not convey. The `limit` parameter is adequately described in the schema, and the description does not obscure it.

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: 'Search OpenSea collections by keyword.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns floor price, verification flag, and headline stats, and by positioning it as the resolver for the slug used by other collection endpoints. This makes its role clear among the extensive OpenSea sibling set.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to resolve a human-readable name to the `slug` the other collection endpoints take.' This implies when NOT to use it as well — if you already have a slug, you should use another collection endpoint. This is strong, directly actionable usage guidance.

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