therealreal_conditions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states this is credential-free public data, that responses are cached, that the data changes rarely, and that counts are 'live matching item count'. This gives an agent a clear safety and freshness profile without needing annotations.

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: what is returned, the exact closed value set, and operational characteristics (caching, credentials, source). The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema reference-data tool, the description is complete. It covers the data content, the closed enumeration, id usage, count semantics, caching behavior, authentication requirements, and provenance. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The description adds useful cross-tool semantics by noting each id is usable directly against search's condition_id, which is valuable beyond the empty 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('The RealReal condition-grading value space'), and exactly what is returned: the closed 6-tier scale with ids and item counts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like therealreal_search, therealreal_categories, and therealreal_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 clearly implies when to call this tool: when you need The RealReal's condition-grading reference data, especially to obtain condition ids usable against search's condition_id. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough 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.